ĐLAHĐYAT FAKÜLTESĐ DERGĐSĐ

ISSN 1300-9672 SÜLEYMAN DEMĐREL ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ ĐLAHĐYAT FAKÜLTESĐ DERGĐSĐ Review of the Faculty of Divinity University of Süleyman Demirel H a k e m l i D e r g i (Refereed Journal) Yıl (Year): 2009/1 Sayı (Number): 22

Derginin Sahibi (Owner of the Journal) Prof. Dr. Kemal SÖZEN (Dekan) Derginin Editörü (Editor-in-Chief of the Journal) Prof. Dr. Đsmail Hakkı GÖKSOY Editör Yardımcıları (Assistant Editors) Doç. Dr. Rifat OKUDAN Doç. Dr. Bilal SAMBUR Dergi Yayın Kurulu (Editorial Board of the Journal) Doç Dr. Ali Galip GEZGĐN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Saadettin ÖZDEMĐR Yrd. Doç. Dr. Đhsan AKTAŞ Arş. Gör. Dr. Nejdet DURAK Dizgi (Composition) SDÜ Đlahiyat Fakültesi Kapak (Cover) SDÜ Basın ve Halkla Đlişkiler Baskı (Print) Đlyas ÖZER - Ali ÇOLAK SDÜ Đlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi hakemli bir dergidir ve yılda iki defa yayımlanır. Dergi, MLA Directory of Periodicals ile MLA Master List of Periodicals a kayıtlı olup, MLA International Bibliography adlı uluslar arası indeks tarafından taranmaktadır. Dergide yayımlanan Đngilizce makaleler, 2006 yılı 16. sayıdan itibaren Index Islamicus adlı uluslar arası indeks tarafından taranmaktadır. Dergide yayınlanan yazıların sorumluluğu yazarlarına aittir. Dergide yayınlanan makale ve yazılar kaynak gösterilmek şartıyla iktibas ve atıf şeklinde kullanılabilir. Đlahiyat Fakültesi Isparta-2009 Đsteme Adresi (Communication Adress) SDÜ Đlahiyat Fakültesi 32260 ISPARTA Tlf: 0 246 237 10 61 Fax: 0 246 237 10 58 II

DANIŞMA VE HAKEM KURULU (BOARD OF ADVISORY AND ACADEMIC REFEREES) ANKARA ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Baki ADAM Prof. Dr. Mehmet AKKUŞ Prof. Dr. Đrfan AYCAN Prof. Dr. Ethem CEBECĐOĞLU Prof. Dr. Recep KILIÇ Prof. Dr. Sönmez KUTLU Prof. Dr. Mehmet PAÇACI Prof. Dr. Cemal TOSUN Prof. Dr. Đsmail Hakkı ÜNAL Prof. Dr. Nesimi YAZICI Prof. Dr. Mehmet Emin ÖZAFŞAR Prof. Dr. Mustafa AŞKAR Prof. Dr. Bünyamin ERUL ATATÜRK ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Hamza AKTAN Prof. Dr. Lütfullah CEBECĐ Prof. Dr. Sadık KILIÇ Prof. Dr. Bahattin KÖK Prof. Dr. Naci OKÇU Prof. Dr. Süleyman TÜLÜCÜ Prof. Dr. Osman TÜRER Prof. Dr. Davut YAYLALI CUMHURĐYET ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Nevzat Yaşar AŞIKOĞLU Prof. Dr. Enbiya YILDIRIM ÇUKUROVA ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Ali Osman ATEŞ DOKUZ EYLÜL ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Hüseyin ELMALI Prof. Dr. Osman KARADENĐZ Prof. Dr. M. Reşit ÖZBALIKÇI Prof. Dr. Mehmet ŞENER ERCĐYES ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. M. Zeki DUMAN Prof. Dr. Ünver GÜNAY Prof. Dr. Harun GÜNGÖR Prof. Dr. Celal KIRCA Prof. Dr. Selahattin POLAT Prof. Dr. Hasan ŞAHĐN FIRAT ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Şuayip ÖZDEMĐR GAZĐ ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Musa YILDIZ HĐTĐT ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Nadim MACĐT ĐSTANBUL ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Şinasi GÜNDÜZ Prof. Dr. Cafer Sadık YARAN KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ ĐMAM ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. M. Kemal ATĐK Prof. Dr. Hüsnü Ezber BODUR Prof. Dr. Mehmet ÖZKARCI RĐZE ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Sadık Kemal SANDIKÇI MARMARA ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Zeki ASLANTÜRK Prof. Dr. Đlyas ÇELEBĐ Prof. Dr. Bedrettin ÇETĐNER Prof. Dr. Mehmet ERDOĞAN Prof. Dr. Ziya KAZICI III

Prof. Dr. Ali KÖSE Prof. Dr. Mustafa TAHRALI Prof. Dr. Veysel UYSAL Prof. Dr. Mustafa UZUN Prof. Dr. Đsmail YĐĞĐT Prof. Dr. Metin YURDAGÜR Prof. Dr. Mazlum UYAR Prof. Dr. Ali AKYÜZ Prof. Dr. Ali DURUSOY Prof. Dr. Ahmet YÜCEL ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Muhsin KOÇAK Prof. Dr. Hüseyin PEKER Prof. Dr. Mustafa Zeki TERZĐ Prof. Dr. Ahmet TURAN Prof. Dr. Erhan YETĐK Prof. Dr. Yavuz ÜNAL Prof. Dr. Burhanettin TATAR SAKARYA ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Abdullah AYDINLI Prof. Dr. Suat CEBECĐ Prof. Dr. Ali ERBAŞ Prof. Dr. Levent ÖZTÜRK SELÇUK ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Mehmet AYDIN Prof. Dr. Hüsamettin ERDEM Prof. Dr. Mehmet Ali KAPAR Prof. Dr. Saffet KÖSE Prof. Dr. Ahmet ÖNKAL Prof. Dr. Bilal SAKLAN Prof. Dr. Süleyman TOPRAK Prof. Dr. Zekeriya GÜLER Doç. Dr. Ahmet ÇAYCI SÜLEYMAN DEMĐREL ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Đsmail Hakkı GÖKSOY Prof. Dr. M. Saffet SARIKAYA Prof. Dr. Kemal SÖZEN Doç. Dr. Abdulgaffar ASLAN Doç. Dr. M. Necmeddin BARDAKÇI Doç Dr. Ali Galip GEZGĐN Doç. Dr. Nasuh GÜNAY Doç. Dr. Đ. Latif HACINEBĐOĞLU Doç. Dr. Musa KOÇAR Doç. Dr. Bahattin YAMAN Doç. Dr. Ahmet YILDIRIM ULUDAĞ ÜNĐVERSĐTESĐ Prof. Dr. Osman ÇETĐN Prof. Dr. Hayati HÖKELEKLĐ Prof. Dr. Mustafa KARA Prof. Dr. Bilal KEMĐKLĐ Prof. Dr. A. Saim KILAVUZ Prof. Dr. Yunus Vehbi YAVUZ UNIVERSITY of WALES Dr. Amjad HUSSAIN Dr. Gregory A. BARKER IV

ĐÇĐNDEKĐLER (CONTENTS) Amjad HUSSAIN Muslim Theology and Religious Studies in the Western Academia 1 (Batı Akademiyasında Đslam Đlahiyatı ve Dini Araştırmalar) Stephen E. GREGG The New Atheism: Global Answers to Global Questions?...7 (Yeni Ateizm: Küresel Sorulara Küresel Cevaplar?) Kemal SÖZEN Kâtip Çelebi nin Devlet Görüşü ve Osmanlı Türk Düşüncesindeki Etkileri.....25 (State View of Khatip Chelebi and His Impacts in the Ottoman-Turkish Thought) Ahmet YILDIRIM Tasavvufî Düşüncede Hz. Ali ve Bu Düşünce Đçerisinde Hz. Ali ye Nispet Edilen Rivayetler.. 41 (Ali in the Thought of Sufısm and the Traditions That Has Been Ascribed to Ali in This Thought) Galip TÜRCAN Hz. Ali ye Đsnat Edilen Đtikâdî Yorumların Kelamî Niteliği: Müslüman Kelamının Đlk Örnekleri Bağlamında Bir Đnceleme 57 (Kalami Character of Theological Comments Attributed to Ali: An Investigation in the Context of Early Examples of the Muslim Theology) Mehmet ĐLHAN Muhammed Zâhid El-Kevserî'nin Şah Veliyyulllah Ed-Dihlevî'nin Bazı Kelâmî Görüşlerine Tenkidleri. 71 (Some Critics of Muhammad Zahid al-kawthari to Theological Views of Shah Waliallah ad-dihlawi) V

Bilgehan Bengü TORTUK Đbn Sina Düşüncesinde Zorunlu Varlık ın Bir Niteliği..83 ( One Characteristic of Necessary Being in the Thought of Avicenna) Melek DĐKMEN Đlmî ve Edebî Yönü Olan Ispartalı Bir Aile: Kınalızâdeler. 105 (A Family of Isparta Having Scientific and Literate Significance: The Kinalizades) Doğan DEMĐRCĐ Demirci Mehmet Efe Ve Isparta nın Đğdecik Köyü ndeki Karargâh Konağı..125 (Demirci Mehmet Efe and His Headquarter House in Đğdecik Village of Isparta) Nevin Karabela Bir Tenkidin Tenkidi...145 (The Criticism of A Critique) ÇEVĐRĐLER/TRANSLATIONS Bursalı Mehmet Tahir b. Rif at dan Sadeleştiren: Saadettin ÖZDEMĐR Ahlâk Kitaplarımız.. 161 (Our Books of Ethics) KĐTAP TANITIMLARI / BOOK REVIEWS Ali BULUT Delâilü l-đ câz Sözdizimi ve Anlambilim Adlı Eser Üzerine.. 177 (On the Book of Delâilü l-đ câz Sözdizimi ve Anlambilim ) VI

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Đlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Yıl: 2009/1, Sayı: 22 Review of the Faculty of Divinity, University of Süleyman Demirel Year:2009/1, Number:22 MUSLIM THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES IN THE WESTERN ACADEMIA Amjad HUSSAIN ABSTRACT This article will begin by examining the academic background of Religious Studies in the Western academia. It will then try to explore the definition of theology in both Christian and Muslim terms. It will argue that the various academic ways of studying Islam in Religious studies can create both complementary and contradictory findings with Muslim theology. It will be argued that there is a certain way that the epistemology of studying Islam through both Muslim theology and through social sciences can create a healthy balance between understanding Islam as an insider and an outsider. Key Words: Religious Studies, Islam and West, Muslim Theology This paper will critically evaluate the relationship, if any, between Muslim theology 1 and Religious Studies within the Western academic arena. Only in recent times has there been a dramatic growth of studying Islam at liberal art universities in the Western world. In contemporary times, the critique of Orientalism has produced a widespread post-modern mood of self-criticism of one s motives for studying the other. Scholars that looked at Islam from a Orientalist lens in the past has been deemed to be based upon confessional claims, i.e. fideistic subjectivism and scholars that used to study Islam through history has been critiqued for their claim of absolute detachment on the part of the observer, i.e. scientific objectivism. Both have been rejected by many postmodern thinkers, which have strongly challenged the idea of a detached observer, by arguing that all interpretations are conditioned by a horizon of understanding i.e. her or his historical milieu. In the end, the post-modernist thought argues that all that is possible to truly know about the past is what people believed happened and literary analysis of historical sources can define 1 University of Wales, United Kingdom. This word in itself is a conundrum-see T. J. Winter, (2008), The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology, (Cambridge: Cambridge Press).

Amjad HUSSAIN the various arguments present at that time. 2 Hence, today the subject that is increasingly being emphasized is the exposition of Islam as it is experienced and lived by the members of the community. In liberal art universities you not only learn about Islam from the text but also look at it through the lens of phenomenology of religion. This can cause a number of problems between what is believed and what is perceived within the study of Islam in Religious Studies. Working within Religious Studies, I have come across perplexing problems of how to align the theological understanding within Islam with the social phenomenon called Islam. 3 I believe one of the main reasons for this is that religious studies as we study it is still very much anchored within a western Judeo-Christian and a western post modern society. The main theoretical proponents behind core subjects such as Sociology of Religion, Philosophy of Religion, Psychology of Religion and the Study of Religion are names such as Durkheim, Marx, Weber, Freud, Jung, Smart, Smith, Sharpe etc. There is no doubt that these scholars have all been firmly anchored within a Western Judeo-Christian and the ideas established about religion in Europe during the enlightenment era in the 19 th century. One example of this should suffice; the study of religion at university level seldom uses non-western scholars to define religion from a non Judeo- Christian tradition. From a post-modern thought, such a definition must be argued to be limited to the Latin derived word religion and must be recognised to be subjective to a certain milieu. Hence, any further research in this area and any further benefit for Religious Studies must include definitions of religion coming from outside this milieu. Thus, even if this would somehow challenge the idea of anything remotely acceptable as a definition by all, it would lead the students of religion to grasp the underlying distinctions and nuances that exist between the various religions and cultures of how they view their universe. It is therefore interesting to note that many Religious Studies Departments in the United Kingdom today are either studying Islam from a study of religion lens, which superimposes a secular worldview on Islam or through social sciences which try to understand Muslims in their social context. However, one of the main losses from their focus is that Islam is not seen through the lens of the Muslim theological beliefs but through contemporary social theorist on topics such as power, economics, community, identity and representation-all far removed from the practical theological application of Islam. What the study of Islam through these social sciences does is unfortunately exclude the Muslim theological views as a world view. 2 3 Martin, Richard C., Islam and Religious Studies - An introductory Essay in Richard C. Martin (ed.), Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, New York: Oneworld Publications, 2001, pp. 1-15) Hussain, Amjad, Islamic education: why is there a need for it? Journal of Beliefs and Values, Volume 25, Number 3, December 2004, p.319. 2

Muslim Theology and Religious Studies in the Western Academia So, how do we understand the word theology in Western context? Today, if a Muslim or an Orthodox Jew were sitting in a Christian theology conference they would just be baffled and mystified to hear the array of theology strands that exists within the Christian tradition such as dogmatic theology, liberal theology, moral theology, systematic theology, comparative theology, feminist theology and positive theology. This is because it is still a challenging task for Orthodox Jews and most Muslims to claim to have even a brand of theology. 4 This is based upon the fact that both of these religions are law based in comparison to Christianity, whose crowning jewel has always been theology. Islam s scholarly gemstone without a doubt has always been the shari ah 5. Muslim theologians were always first of all jurists and even Sufi scholars and philosophers were expert jurists such as Ibn Rushd (d.1198) and Ibn Arabi (d.1240). 6 It could be asked why shari ah was recognised as the gemstone of Muslim scholarship. One possible argument is that Islam is a predominantly a practical religion and its adherent s goal is to respond to God s call through their deeds. Thus, the need for Islamic law, that guides Muslim behaviour through life, has predominantly superseded the theoretical dedication to Muslim thought. This is re-iterated by Josef Van Ess in his book the Flowering of Islamic Theology where he states For Islam, orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy. At the level of action, in the liturgy and in daily life, details counted a great deal. 7 So, what is theology? According to the Encyclopaedia of Religion the term theology means discourse or speech about God and the word was used by Plato to describe the poets who wrote about gods and theogonies, whereas Aristotle attributed theology to scholars that dealt with mythology or even metaphysics in comparison with philosophical enquiry about the Divine. During the first centuries of Christianity the word theology was primarily used by Origen (d. 254) to designate the knowledge of God and slowly it moved way from paganism to be exclusively about the Christian God. 8 With regard to this theology, it is an enigma for Muslims that Christian theology is reliant on the human enquiry or rather explorativeness of the nature of God. For Muslims on 4 5 6 7 8 Umansky, Louis & Ellen, Theology (ed) in Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Jacobs, Encyclopaedia Judaica,Vol.19., 2nd ed., Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2007, pp.694-699. Islamic Law in this sense is a far broader concept than what is generally perceived in the English language, since it includes not only penal, state, trade and family law but as well manners, rituals and worship which does not only have an impact in this world but as well in the next world; thus making the Shari ah a subject matter important for both the physical world and the metaphysical one. Hussain, Amjad, An Analysis of the Social History of Islamic Education, Lampeter, PhD Thesis, 2006, pp. 164-169. Van Ess, Josef, The Flowering of Islamic Theology, Cambridge: Harvard University Pres, 2006, p. 16. Lindsay Jones, Theology: Christian Theology, Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. Yves Congar), Vol. 13, 2 nd edition, Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2005, p.9134. 3

Amjad HUSSAIN the other hand there is a total reliance on the revealed scripture to know the nature of God. The Christian understanding of the term may just be the main reason for the evasion of the term theology in contemporary Islam. Tariq Ramadan writes in his book Western Muslims and the Future of Islam that there is no Islamic theology and continues to point out that historically Muslims have never questioned the absolute Oneness of God and the impossibility of His representation nor doubted the Qur an to be the revealed word from God. He continues to argue that to have an authentic theology one has to inquire into the truth of the above three statements about God and speech, which Islam has never done. 9 Even though scholars of Islam did not question the existence of God (since it was already agreed that God existed due to revelation), it is argued by many contemporary scholars, including Ramadan, that Muslims have continuously discussed the meaning and significance of the names and attributes of God. They have also had to deal with the question of free will and particulars of resurrection. Islam therefore seems to have a kind of theology but it all depends on what is meant by the word theology. In Islam, it seems that the word theology can not be understood in the same context as it is understood in Christianity. Seyyed Hussain Nasr compares theology in Christianity with Islamic theology as In Christianity not only has theology attempted to provide a rational defence for the faith, but it also sought to provide access to the highest realms of the life of spirit, as one finds in the mystical theology Dinoysius Areopagite or, in the Protestant context, in the Theological Germanica of Martin Luther. Such has never been the case in Islam, where Kalam, which means literally word, continued to be the science that bears responsibility of solidly establishing religious beliefs by giving proofs and dispelling doubts. 10 It becomes very clear when looking at the Islamic intellectual history that Kalam (Islamic dogmatic theology), Falsafah (philosophy) and Tasawuf (Sufism) can easily be confused with each other when looking through Christian theological lenses. An oversimplistic division of what is referred to as theology with regards to belief in Christianity can be found scattered within three sciences of Islam; in Tasawuf where Muslim scholars sought access to the highest realms of the life of the spirit and wrote about gnostic experience, within Falsafah where Muslim scholars ventured into speculating about metaphysical reality and tried to reach it with the intellect and within kalam where Muslim scholars defined and defended the faith. It is often found that these scholars, the mutakallimun (theologians), the Muslim philosophers and the Sufis touched upon similar topics coming from different directions but always existing within the Islamic world view. Through time, certain figures were able to combine these sciences, such as al-ghazali (d.1111) and Fakhr al-din al-razi (d.1209). 9 10 Tariq Ramadan, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, Oxford: Oxford University Pres, 2005, p. 12. Nasr, S. H., Islamic Spirituality; Manifestations, New York: SCM Pres, 1991, p. 395. 4

Muslim Theology and Religious Studies in the Western Academia As Merry 11 points out, contrary to western custom of reasoning by way of doubt and uncertainty, Muslim-while encouraged to be critically minded are called to an education built on the premise of faith in a divine order. I have found that most misunderstandings in dialogue between Muslims and people of other faiths (or no faiths) in the West more often than not stems from assumptions made about the theology of Islam. It is presumed that somehow because Islam is a theistic and an Abrahamic faith it would necessarily follow a similar approach as the other two Abrahamic faiths with regards to religion. It is also assumed that the Muslims of the 21 st century would have a similar history as the two other faiths and thus would have come across the self-professed enlightenment that the other two monotheistic faiths encountered during the 18 th century. From a Muslim theological point of view it is important to highlight the differences that exist due to these nuances. From all the empirical evidence available, it is safe to state that religious belief in the 20 th century and today, still seems to be very much at the roots of Muslims lives and God is very much a part of their everyday life. The concept of a unified Muslim theology consistent with a divine Active Creator follows throughout, since this it is very much a part of the Muslim world as social scientists have proven. 12 The concept of Tawhid in Muslim theology represents an awareness of God in all spheres of life, whether modern or traditional. 13 It is from this juncture we need to start to understand the Muslim faith in the 21 st century, which may suddenly become for someone experienced, in only a certain western society, an unrecognizable era; where the world of the primacy of science, of autonomous human and a secular reality is not anymore the norm, but a rarity. For example, the majority of the 2.1 billion Muslim worldwide, including the majority of their scientists, disagree with the view of macro-evolution found within Western post-modern studies, but this disagreement is never covered except in the most condescending of ways. This post-modern way of studying religion ranges from suppositions of how history and science should be instead of how it is perceived by adherents of Islam and to even how Islam is understood in the lecture rooms. In other words, Islam is seldom portrayed in the way it is understood by its adherents and Muslim theology and its world view become lost in the social scientific teaching on Islam. Take for example research on the Prophet Muhammad that portrays him as the founder of Islam as factual; in Muslim theology this is a false 11 12 13 Merry, Michael S., Islamic Philosophy of Education and Western Islamic Schools; Points of Tension in Salili, Farideh & Hoosain Rumjahn (eds.), Religion in Multicultural Education, USA: IAP, 2006, p. 62. Meer, Nasar, Muslim Schools in Britain: Challenging Mobilizations or Logical developments, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Vol. 27, No. 1, March 2007, p. 60. Mandaville, Peter, Islamic Education in Britain: Approaches to Religious Knowledge in a Pluralistic Society in Hefner, Robert & Qasim, Muhammad Zaman (eds.), Schooling Islam; the Culture and Politics of Modern Islam, Oxford & Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 231. 5

Amjad HUSSAIN construct. The social scientist could argue this to be a historical fact, however, this must be coupled with the Muslim understanding that Muhammad is but a messenger of God and could possibly not be the founder of Islam. This theological fact is imperative to understand anything at all of the Muslim view. This does not mean that we exclude studying Islam from a study of religion lens or through the social sciences. Findings from both of these can help us comprehend Muslims and Islam in the contemporary world from a social and phenomenological theorist sense but it will not explain their own world view. Understanding God as active in the universe for example shape the practices of Muslims in major ways. The concept of a unified theology consistent with a divine Active Creator follows throughout the Muslim world, which social scientists have proven through numerous anthropological studies. However, it is when studying Islam through the lens of post modernistic thought, which only defines belief within the confines of social sciences, that the Muslim conviction as a valid post modern belief is lost from the field of study. Thus, as Wilfred Cantwell Smith 14 argued there is a need for a dialogic approach where the object needs to a scholarly understanding of the faith held by individual Muslims. This means that Muslim theology needs to be taken seriously within the study of religion to reach a balanced view. This is the only way that a social dialogue can truly take place with regards to the place of Islamic theology within liberal academia and its traditional Judaic/Christian background. ÖZET (Batı Akademiyasında Đslam Đlahiyatı ve Dini Araştırmalar) Bu makale önce Batı Akademiyasındaki dini çalışmaların arka planını inceleyecek, daha sonra da gerek Hıristiyan gerekse Müslüman terminolojisindeki teoloji tarifini keşfetmeye çalışacaktır. Çeşitli akademik yöntemlerle, dini araştırmalar bağlamında Đslamı incelemenin Đslam teolojisiyle çelişen ve uyuşan bulguları ortaya çıkarabileceği tartışılacaktır. Đslam teolojisi ve sosyal bilimlerin katkısıyla Đslamı inceleme epistemolojisinin, Đslamı içerden ve dışardan biri olarak anlamanın arasında sağlıklı bir denge kurabileceğinin belli bir yöntemi olduğu kanıtlanmaya çalışılacaktır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Dini Araştırmalar, Đslam ve Batı, Đslam Đlahiyatı 14 Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, On Understanding Islam: Selected Studies, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1981, p.153. 6

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Đlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Yıl: 2009/1, Sayı: 22 Review of the Faculty of Divinity, University of Süleyman Demirel Year:2009/1, Number:22 THE NEW ATHEISM: GLOBAL ANSWERS TO GLOBAL QUESTIONS? Stephen E. GREGG ABSTRACT This paper briefly outlines the main proponents of the New Atheism debate, sometimes called the Oxford God Debate, and the respondents to this movement, whom I have labelled the New Apologists. The main focus of the paper is the deconstruction of the categories used by both the New Atheists and the New Apologists in an attempt to demonstrate the lack of width of the debate. The cultural and philosophical assumptions and preconditions of the New Atheists are challenged by referencing Eastern philosophical traditions (specifically the Hindu Advaita tradition), New Religions (specifically the International Raelian Movement) and issues concerning Non-Realism. The paper is neither a defence nor an attack upon the New Atheism, but a rallying call for the debate to be widened beyond the current Abrahamic limits of discussion. Keywords: New Atheism, Oxford God Debate, New Apologists, New Religious Movements. Introduction This paper sets out to examine the collection of writings and media that has become known as the New Atheism, along with respondents to this movement, who I will label the New Apologists. My method will not be to examine the minutiae of each publication, but to try to understand the context, assumptions and cultural baggage demonstrated by each proponent in their chosen approach to, and understanding of the debate in question. My overall aim is to outline what I believe to be the key shortcomings in their approach to understanding the human religious condition this will apply equally to the New Apologists, of whom I will be asking questions concerning their validity as representatives of a wide cultural understanding of religion. It is important to note that this paper is not written as a contribution to the New Atheist texts, nor is it aimed at supporting the approaches taken by the New Apologists it is written with a large degree of scepticism concerning the effectiveness of either side s approach to this socially important issue, and a key aim of the paper is to seek a wider arena for dialogue than that which is currently taking place. Trinity University College, United Kingdom.

Stephen E. GREGG The Limitations of the New Atheists and the New Apologists The New Atheists is a label applied to a group of scholars, journalists and social commentators who have, in recent years, tackled the subject of religion s function, both at social and individual levels. Whilst the media is keen to place all exponents of this area within the blanket term New Atheism, several different approaches are taken Richard Dawkins, for example, bases his primary objection to Religion in his own field of Evolutionary Biology and Memetics, whilst Christopher Hitchens argues from a socio-political viewpoint, more in-tune with his background as a journalist and essayist. The core texts of, for want of a better description, the New Atheist canon, include, but are not limited to, Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, 1 Sam Harris Letter to A Christian Nation 2, Christopher Hitchens God Is Not Great 3 and A.C. Grayling s Against All Gods. 4 There are of course other texts by these authors, in addition to further important works such as Daniel C. Dennet s Breaking the Spell. 5 However I will concentrate on the first three texts here mentioned due to their massive sales and influence within the UK, and also Grayling s work here mentioned due to its emphasis on accessibility and a defence of the New Atheist position, in counter-response to the writings of the New Apologists. Richard Dawkins, currently Professorial Fellow of New College, Oxford, and previously the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, published The God Delusion in 2006, shortly after the broadcasting of his Channel 4 television series The Root of All Evil? 6,which has set out his viewpoint that religious belief was irrational and socially divisive. A book concerning religion always seemed to be on Dawkins agenda, and his best-selling works River Out of Eden 7 and A Devil s Chaplain 8 prepared the ground for the debate that was to follow. Primarily concerned with the deconstruction of religion as an intellectually viable position, Dawkins approaches the issue in two ways; firstly, suggesting that religious faith is a product of large-scale social misconception and, secondly, that a belief in God is philosophically and morally untenable. The aim of these approaches is then 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Transworld, 2006) Harris, Letter To A Christian Nation: A Challenge To Faith (London: Transworld, 2007) Hitchens, God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion (London: Atlantic Books, 2007). Note, this work was published in America under the title God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Grayling, Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness (London: Oboron, 2007) Dennett, Daniel C. Breaking the Spell (London: Allen Lane, 2006) Channel 4 Television, in 2 parts first broadcast January 2006. Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (London: Phoenix, 1996) Menon, Latha (Ed.) A Devil s Chaplain: Selected Essays by Richard Dawkins (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003) 8

The New Atheism: Global Answers to Global Questions? made clear in Dawkins description of examples of morally unjustifiable acts towards children, homosexuals and women, in the name of superstitious beliefs. To achieve his aim, Dawkins argues that Darwinian evolutionary theory has replaced any requirement for God, that Atheism is the proof of a healthy and intellectual mind, and that belief in God is a demonstration of a mental illness indeed, Dawkins takes the title for his book from Robert Pirsig s Pulitzer Prizenominated novel Lila, in which religion is repeatedly described as a delusion. 9 Christopher Hitchens is the British-born, American-based, writer of God Is Not Great, which focuses specifically upon the social and political undesirability of religious systems, as opposed to the mixture of social and philosophical deconstructions attempted by Dawkins. 10 The book concentrates two-fold upon the political damage done in the name of religion, and also the irrationality behind social customs that have emerged from religions indeed, an entire chapter is given the heading A Short Digression on the Pig; or, Why Heaven Hates Ham. 11 Much of Hitchens focus is aimed at a discussion of the violence and political nature of religious extremists and the argument that religious teachings are not as moral as their exponents would have us believe, and that scriptures, doctrines and covenants are based on falsehoods. 12 Sam Harris, a current doctoral candidate in neuroscience at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University, is the author of Letter to a Christian Nation: A Challenge to Faith. Written as a rejoinder to criticisms of his previous work The End of Faith, 13 the Letter is written unapologetically in a style intended for those Americans who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that only those who accept the divinity of Jesus Christ will experience salvation after death. 14 It is important to note, however, that Harris believes that his conclusions and opinions are relevant for people of all faiths. 15 Harris main thesis is the connection between religion and extremism, often engendered in so called moderate believers who Harris believes are responsible for allowing the extremist elements to exist at all. 16 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Pirsig, Robert M. Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals (London: Black Swan, 1992) Chapters five and six of Hitchen s work do look at metaphysical claims of religions, but Hitchens simply uses the religious reversion to the metaphysical as a reason to separate religious claims from modern, scientific claims about knowledge no specific philosophical arguments are entered into in detail. Hitchens, op cit, pp. 37-41. See for example, ibid, pp. 109ff. Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, And The Future of Reason (London: Simon & Schuster, 2006) Harris, Letter, pg. Xii. Ibid., pg. Xi. Ibid., pg. Xiii. 9

Stephen E. GREGG Finally, in this introductory section, we turn to A.C. Grayling, Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London and author of Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness. Grayling stands apart from the other New Atheist authors in this study, as a specialist in philosophy rather than an academic in another subject area, such as Dawkins, or a social commentator such as Hitchens. In this respect, we will be using Grayling s work to position the debate and dialogue between the New Atheists and New Apologists in what I believe to be a suitable categorical framework, although more of this later. Grayling is not without his limitations, though, as we shall outline below. And so, having briefly outlined the key exponents of New Atheism, I wish to offer up my primary, and simple objection to their approach to the debate, and I would like to do this by quoting Richard Dawkins: There are fairies, there are unicorns, hobgoblins we can t disprove any of those, but we don t believe in them any more than nowadays we believe in Thor, Amun Ra or Aphrodite. We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. 17 Put simply, the determination of the New Atheists to go that one God further 18 is both their largest fascination, and their biggest weakness. The implicit Western cultural colonialism and the explicit concentration upon Abrahamic faith systems have rendered the New Atheists stagnant when approaching key aspects of the human religious condition the New Atheists are simply not asking wide enough questions to make their contribution relevant to a Global understanding of religion Let us take Richard Dawkins as an example in The God Delusion, Dawkins constantly presumes a belief in God as the source of religion; he does not see fit to separate the concepts at all. This is wholly inadequate. Harris, in turn, writes his Letter exclusively to right-wing Christians, but even when he covers non-abrahamic traditions in The End of Faith (invariably Hinduism and Buddhism, as if there were only five religions in the world), we find that statements are always given in relation to an Abrahamic faith (often Islam) and no insight is offered into Eastern philosophies at all. 19 Like Harris, Hitchens does spend a very little time discussing Eastern religions, but his treatment of this subject does not include any philosophical analysis, but rather exists to warn the Western reader away from any romantic notions of the goodness of these religions indeed, he even titles this section There Is No Eastern Solution 20. His treatment of this subject is largely limited to anecdotal evidences regarding dishonest or showman-like Indian gurus, an 17 18 19 20 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqy32sfw-w Dawkins, The Root of All Evil?, Episode One For examples, see Harris, The End of Faith, pp. 114 and 216. Hitchens, op cit, pp. 195-204. 10

The New Atheism: Global Answers to Global Questions? accusation it would seem eminently feasible in charging toward people in diverse professions, including Hitchen s own of journalism. Again, the lack of any coherent attempt to comprehend the philosophical or cultural understanding of religion outside of the author s own view is telling. In this respect, Hitchens is guilty of undertaking an exercise in spiritual tourism, where snapshots are taken of the subject matter with no attempt to acquire a depth of understanding. Even Grayling, the most eloquent and coherent of the New Atheists, lets slip his unwillingness to see beyond his limited understanding of the human religious condition, in an example of a cavalier dismissal of a major branch of unorthodox Christian theology of the past 30 years namely non-realism when he dismisses Don Cupitt 21 as a current celebrity cleric who go[es] so far as to claim that God does not have to exist to be believed in.. 22 Such pejorative dismissal does not give Grayling any credit, especially when we consider, as we will in our subsequent section, that there are distinct links between Grayling s definition of supernaturalism, and definitions I will offer regarding non-realism and non-dualism. It is however, also apparent that the New Apologists, who form such a crucial role in the understanding of the dialogical writings of the New Atheists, share many of these limitations. In the New Apologist response to the New Atheism, two scholars stand out with the highest of profiles Keith Ward and Alistair McGrath. Keith Ward, Emeritus Regus Professor of Divinity at Oxford University, is the author of Is Religion Dangerous?, 23 written in response to Dawkins The Root of All Evil? programmes, and Why There Almost Certainly Is A God, 24 written in direct response to Dawkins The God Delusion, and indeed basing its title on a deliberate misquotation from a chapter in Dawkins book. 25 In a previous time of theological challenges to Christianity, Ward also published Holding Fast to God 26 in response to Don Cupitt s Taking leave of God 27 demonstrating his desire to defend orthodox Christian faith. Ward s trump card is that he holds sway as a philosopher first and as a theologian (a discipline Dawkins states simply doesn t exist) 28 second. Indeed, he wrote his reply to Cupitt whilst F.D. Maurice Professor of Philosophy at King s College, London. With this in mind, he meets Dawkins head on in an arena of philosophical debate in which some commentators have noted that Dawkins 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Grayling does not mention Cupitt by name, but we may be confident that he is the intended target as the founder of the Non-Realist movement. Grayling, op cit, pg. 62 Ward, Is Religion Dangerous (London: Lion Hudson, 2006) Ward, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God (London: LionHudson, 2008) Ibid., pg. 10. Ward, Holding Fast To God: A Reply to Don Cupitt (London: SPCK, 1982) Cupitt, Taking Leave of God (London: SCM Press, 1980) Ward, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, pg. 7. 11

Stephen E. GREGG loses his usual analytical and academic thoroughness. 29 My concern with Ward s treatment of this subject lies not, therefore, in his skilful application of philosophical and scientific modes of thought he eloquently raises issues such as quantum mechanics as a useful arena for debate but in his separation of religion from social and political problems. During a public lecture given at Trinity University College 30, Ward was asked by a member of the audience how he regarded religion s role in historical tragedies such as the Crusades and other Medieval wars. His reply was to state that such events were political events and, as such, were not to be understood in the realm of the religious. 31 I have to say, this surprised me, sat as I was amongst the audience. Such a view of religion, as if it somehow existed in a dogmatic vacuum, struck me as untenable when the concept is understood within other cultures. My first thought was of M.K. Gandhi, who famously stated that Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is. 32 Gandhi, of course, was a Hindu, a thought system that reverts to Sanskrit as its authoritative language a language which famously doesn t have a word for our Western concept of religion; the closest that is often incorrectly suggested 33 is Dharma, which is often unsatisfactorily translated into English as duty. Crucially, this universal term does not distinguish between personal, devotional, ritual, social or cosmic duty as they are all inextricably linked in Hindu philosophy and cosmology. Alistair McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University 34, and a former atheist with a PhD in Molecular Biophysics. Much currency is made of this in his writings, including The Dawkins Delusion, 35 as he sees his and Dawkins journeys as academically similar, with different conclusions reached. McGrath s style is to deconstruct step-by-step Dawkins approach to the dismissal of religion, both on scientific and theological grounds. Much of McGrath s arguments are based upon criticism of a lack of coherency in Dawkins arguments, and his view that Dawkins makes many unsubstantiated and unscientific statements as if they were fact. 36 He also makes the important 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 See, for example, Eagleton A Review of The God Delusion London Review of Books, October 19 th 2006. 29/11/2007 I am paraphrasing from memory the events of the evening, although Prof. Ward s separation of politics and religion in his given answer was quite clear. Dirks, Castes of Mind: Colonialism & The Making of Modern India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), p. 298 This is the view of many scholars, but see, for example, Ludo Rocher The Dharmasastras in Flood (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003) pg. 102. The very fact that Dawkins, McGrath and Ward have all taught at Oxford together, albeit in different colleges and departments, has led some commentators to label the current debate The Oxford God Debate. McGrath & Collicutt McGrath The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the denial of the divine (London; SPCK, 2007) For examples see ibid., pg. 24 & 41 12

The New Atheism: Global Answers to Global Questions? point that Dawkins does not discuss non-theism, however this line of argument and criticism then disappears entirely from McGrath s work, as it continues its single purpose of defending a Christian world-view without reference to the contributions of other faith systems. 37 In addition to Ward and McGrath, I wish to mention two other New Apologists, who represent different approaches to the debate. Firstly, Tina Beattie, Professor of Catholic Studies at Roehampton University, approaches the debate in The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason & The War on Religion, 38 with a refreshingly wide understanding of the positionality of key exponents, eloquently arguing for a widening of our understanding of the reasons behind the current debate by situating it in a wider social and historical context. 39 There are, however two major limitations to Beattie s explorations; firstly, even though she does mention non-theism as a legitimate response to the New Atheist linking of religion and belief in God, this is justified in a purely Christian context, with examples given of British Christians who do not believe in God, but who feel compelled to be a part of the Anglican flock, due to loyalty to the tribe. 40 Secondly, whilst Beattie aims to widen the debate, she does this by exploring the historical context of the Atheism issue, which I believe only acts to solidify the Western understanding of atheism, supernaturalism and religion indeed, whilst it is true that the debate has been primarily Western in origin, development and context, it is also true that this occurred during a period of history when dialogue between world-views was inescapably restricted by the cultural assumptions of colonialism. 41 Whilst it is therefore necessary to understand the context in which this debate has grown, I would suggest that it is vital that the dialogue is now, in our post-colonial understanding of the world, widened to benefit from Global understandings of religiosity. The final New Apologist that I would like to mention is David Robertson, author of The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths. 42 Unlike Beattie, Ward and McGrath, Robertson does not hold an academic position, but is a pastor of the Free Church of Scotland. This is made clear by his approach to the subject, which is, understandably for a practicing minister, the most defensive and dogmatic example here mentioned. Whilst one should, of course, 37 38 39 40 41 42 Ibid. pg. 36. Beattie, The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason & The War on Religion (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2007) Ibid. pg. 2 Ibid., pg. 50. This is particularly apparent during British philosophical and theological understandings of Hinduism during the C18th and C19th centuries. I am indebted to Dr. Gregory A. Barker for also bringing to my attention numerous examples of this limitation of dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism. See Barker & Gregg (Eds.) Jesus Beyond Christianity: The Classic Texts (Oxford: OUP, forthcoming). Robertson, The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2007) 13

Stephen E. GREGG expect a priest of a faith system to uphold the views of their own church, what I find striking about Robertson is his lack of engagement with human-wide issues of religiosity examples include a gross misunderstanding of the concept of Karma 43 and a section on the absurdity of seeing man as God, despite the fact that this is a central tenet of Mormonism, some Hindu groups, and also the 5 Percenters, an American Islamic New Religious Movement. 44 Of course, it would be unrealistic to expect every priest of each denomination within a given faith system to be fully versed in the religious practices of others, but this serves as a useful example for the simple reason that Robertson is not alone. There are a large number of publications written by conservative Christians, particularly from North America, which have joined the debate. It is, of course, perfectly legitimate for them to do so, but it further demonstrates the limited response to the limited questions that are being asked within a debate that is being played out amongst the New Atheists and New Apologists of the West. The Problem of Categories Language and Positionality Having briefly outlined the central issue of a lack of breadth and scope in the New Atheism debate, understanding that each side is, to a greater of lesser extent, liable to such a charge, I now wish to turn to the problem of the language and categories used by the proponents of each side of the debate. I do this in the hope that further constructive critiques may be made of our key exponents, and also, that our next section, which gives three brief case studies to further demonstrate failures of the current debate, may be seen in the light of appropriately understood terms. The first, and perhaps most obvious contested term, is that of atheist itself. Used consistently by authors on each side of the debate, the term is very infrequently discussed or defined. I would argue this is because of the variations apparent in the meaning of the word, even if we limit our enquiry to Western understanding. Tracing the meaning of the word to its Greek origin, Michael Martin differentiates between negative and positive atheism, the former being someone without a belief in God [who] need not be someone who believes that God does not exist and the latter meaning an atheist is not simply one who holds no belief in the existence of a God or gods but is one who believes that there is no God or gods. 45 These understandings necessarily link their definitions to a translation of atheist as without God a phrase fully compatible with the Athenian State Religion understanding of paying recognition to the Gods nomisdeon tous theos rather than believing in them 43 44 45 Ibid. pg. 50 I am indebted to Richard Cawley of Cardiff University for introducing me to the theology of the 5 Percenters movement. Both quotations from Martin, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) pg. 1. 14

The New Atheism: Global Answers to Global Questions? in a modern, Western sense. In recognition of this specific cultural and religious inheritance, Martin argues that if applied cautiously outside its clearest historical context, the concept of atheism can be illuminating for contemporary Western readers. 46 Crucially for our current study, Martin also states that in the modern Western context atheism has meant different things depending on changing conceptions of God. I would support this view of a malleable understanding of the concept, and suggest that it is appropriate to open the exploration of this term, fully conscious of its cultural and linguistic provenance, to a wider conception of deity, religion and human experience. To this end, one of our case studies is purposefully chosen as a distinct and proudly atheistic religion. Before moving on to my chosen case studies, I wish to address two further qualifications regarding the language used by both the New Atheists and the New Apologists. Firstly, I wish to comment upon the use of the term non-believer, taking objection to the implicit value-judgements implied in its usage. Used extensively by Beattie in particular, it seems to me that more neutral terms must be used if this debate is to be widened. To classify someone as an unbeliever assumes that the person in question stands in opposition to a given set of values and beliefs that may be foreign to the majority of humankind, for example a person of deep religious inclination who happens to belong to a faith tradition other than our own. The term may be applied, of course, within individual faith systems as well, when there are schisms, denominational differences and doctrinal disagreements. Surely this therefore renders the phrase particularly unhelpful in any attempt to look at distinct human religious traditions objectively? A second objection to this phrase is a simple response to its use by some of the New Apologists (and religious believers in general) by referencing the argument used in Bertrand Russell s Teapot analogy, referred to in our earlier video by Richard Dawkins. Whilst the socio-religious and philosophical construction of Russell s argument regarding the possibility of belief in any given celestial or heavenly being may be challenged on many grounds, I regard the truism of his argument to stand strongly namely that the burden of proof must always lie with the proponent of an idea, not the opponent. This is particularly important when considering the use of negative descriptions (such as non-believer ) which firmly root judgements, opinions and arguments in a very specific world-view, or understanding of religion or deity, in counterrelation to the non-believer in question. The final category definition that I would like to examine is naturalist and supernaturalist. Grayling comments on these terms as his preferred replacements for atheist and theist as follows: As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, 46 Ibid., pg. 1 15