The Science and Religion in Islam research group is the result of a collaboration between a number of Muslim academics who have decided to work together to explore the interface between science and religion from the perspective of different disciplinary horizons. We hope to contribute to the emergence of a working culture which is based on a double perspective: on one hand that of a rationality that is open to problems of a metaphysical, spiritual or theological order and, on the other hand, that of a spiritual life, of a religious conscience, and an inner experience that is open to philosophical problems that arise from investigations in the area of contemporary science. We advocate this double perspective in the sense that we consider that science and religion have things to say to one another. But, at the same time, this requires a great deal of clarity in our intentions as well as rigour in our method. The bringing together in a illusory side-by-side, or a fallacious analogy, of Islamic religious knowledge and the findings of contemporary science can lead to disappointing results since, by ignoring the specificities of the two areas and the singularity of the principles which govern their respective movements, this approach prevents, in reality, the emergence of a real "convergence" between science and religion. For this reason, unlike a certain reading which dominates in the Islamic World, we do not think that these two spheres of knowledge can seriously enter into dialogue with each other in a direct fashion. In our opinion, the nature of the relationship between the two areas requires an "internal", philosophical, theological or spiritual inquiry. Hence we will be able to phrase the question as follows: what is it within science that can enter into a meaningful dialogue with Islam? And what is it within Islam that can enter into a meaningful dialogue with science?   When we speak of Islam we are not only talking about the religious component. In order to promote the emergence of a serious dialogue between science and religion in the perspective of religion, we need to consider all the dimensions of the culture that has arisen from the civilisation that has been nurtured by this religion. It is one of the reasons why our research group includes not only mathematicians, physicists, and astrophysicists but also theologians, historians and philosophers. An interdisciplinary approach is an important aspect of our work: creating links between the findings of each discipline while keeping within the rules of each discipline.   The science-islam site intends to function as a knowledge forum in view of the emergence of a genuine scientific modernity that is rooted in the conscience of intellectual, spiritual and ethical values. Under these four section-headings (articles, abstracts, bibliographical references and links) our site will propose a certain number of tools, concepts and methods, theses and structures which may, in some way, contribute to the renewal or, more accurately, the "revitalisation", of Islamic thought based on a profound comprehension of the challenges and the advancements that are being made in the 21st century. 

In his brilliant The Definitive Discourse on the Harmony between Religion and Philosophy, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) addresses the question of the possible conflict between Religion and Philosophy (today he and we would be saying ‘Science’). Reviewing the problem from a religious perspective in particular, he concluded that not only can Truth (Revelation) not contradict Wisdom (Philosophy), the two must agree and support each other. He described them as “bosom sisters” and added that “injuries [to religion] made by relatives (i.e. people of philosophy/science are the severest injuries”; he also decried “the enmity and quarrels which such [injuries] stir up between the two, when they are in fact mutually loving friends by nature and essence…”

When Carl Sagan, the late astronomer and science advocate and popularizer, gave the Gifford Lectures (recently published as “The Varieties of Scientific Experience”), he – the (soft) atheist – speaking of the relation between science and religion describes science as “informed worship”. His wife, the famous author Ann Druyan, who wrote the introduction to the book, noted: “he never understood why anyone would want to separate science, which is just a way of searching for what is true, from what we hold sacred, which are those truths that inspire love and awe.” She added: “His argument was not with God but with those who believed that our understanding of the sacred had been completed.”

So then is there any problem, definite or potential, between Science and Religion that we should be here to examine the possible interactions between them? Well first, not all scientists and philosophers agree on the great harmony that the opening quotes seem to imply. Second, the problem arises when one tries to examine the “spheres of influence” of each.

To put it succinctly, since my time is very limited here, I shall say that Science and Religion are two worldviews, or “systems of the world”; they claim to describe “reality” and to explain our existence and that of the world; hence they often come to compete for humans’ minds. In his latest book, Freeman Dyson, one of great philosophical scientists of the past 30 years, said about religion that it “is an essential part of the human condition, more deeply rooted and more widely shared than science.” One of the main reasons that make Science and Religion compete for people’s minds is that each claims to be a source of knowledge (or the source of knowledge)! Science and Religion are fundamentally different conceptual systems, however; it is thus of utmost importance to understand their differences, their domains of overlap, and the possible ways in which they can and must interact.

The study of this interaction has, for the past half century or more, become a specialized academic field, where various aspects of the subject are studied. In particular, Barbour has proposed four categories of interaction between Science and Religion: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration; others (e.g. Dyson) have proposed Complementarity (with separation) or NOMA (Non-Overlapping MAgesteria – Stephen J. Gould).

Other such approaches include “natural theology”, which has replaced the old “rational theology” as an attempt to find evidence/proof for God in the realm of nature, “scientific theology” (McGrath), where the methods of Science are adopted for a rigorous and solidly backed Theology, and “spiritual information”, which is a general expression describing a rigorous (“scientific”) study of spirituality (as proposed by John Templeton).

Freeman Dyson, borrowing an idea from Niels Bohr, defends “complementarity” (between science and religion), where an analogy is made with the complementarity between the wave and particle natures of light or between justice and mercy in ethics, form and substance in literature, thought and feeling in psychology, etc. Dyson associates complementarity with total separation (since in physics it is impossible to observe both aspects simultaneously), but I do not believe such a disconnection is necessary or fruitful. Those who uphold this kind of “independence” (as in Barbour’s taxonomy) justify it on grounds of the risk of getting the two fields muddled, such that one will not be able to do either real science or real religion. This risk is definite and must be watched for, but the solution is not necessarily total disjunction.

Hard-line scientists, however, not only refuse any such interaction but often argue that there is absolutely no need for Religion at all, that Science is – at least in principle – capable of inducting and ultimately fully explaining any field of natural or human activity. This position, usually referred to as “scientism”, has sometimes been described by its opponents as a “theology of arrogance”. Furthermore, the recent field of the sociology of science has found many ills in Science, which would disqualify it from any claim to be the main director of human thought and activity.

In the Muslim world now, no formal categories of the nature of the Science-Religion relation have been put forward, but a variety of integrated “Islamic Science” models have been proposed, ranging from “sacred science” (by Seyyed Hossein Nasr) and “ethical and beneficial science” (Ziauddin Sardar and the Ijmalis), to “theistic science” (Mehdi Golshani) and “universal science” (Abdus Salam).

In practice, however, we have – in the Arab/Muslim world – over the past few decades witnessed quite a bit of confusion and misunderstanding of the roles that Science and Religion are supposed to play and the places they must occupy in society. We will address this state of affairs in at least one session of this Forum, but suffice it to say that when Qur’anic verses are turned into equations, and physical quantities are numerically derived from the Holy Qur’an, one must look at such approaches carefully and critically. Likewise, when irrational beliefs become ubiquitous and all kinds of medical effects are linked to spiritual phenomena, one must examine the understanding of both science and the scriptures.

To put things succinctly, my position regarding the possible relation between Science and Religion is the following: one can and should find a terrain of dialogue and cooperation between the two, but some conditions must be upheld: while the fundamental mechanisms of Science (falsifiability, in particular) should not be corrupted or negotiated, a fruitful exchange and mutual enrichment is possible at the “metaphysical” level, as different general philosophical frameworks can be adopted for Science, ranging from the materialistic to the theistic; my view is that a non-destructive theistic envelope can be added both without loss of rigor and with gains in meaning, ethic, and general outlook (worldview).

To paraphrase Dyson: Science and religion can avoid conflict and be positive engines in humanity’s growth if Science can accept to give up its imperialistic dreams and if Religion can accept to be less “dogmatic” and more open to contributions from other fields of knowledge (science, arts, etc.).

Now, regarding the confusions that have grown between Science and Religion (particularly in Islam), two things must be done: 1) require the teaching of the philosophy of science for everyone, starting from the last year of high school to the university; 2) call upon Muslim scientists, philosophers, and sociologists to speak up, denounce the mish-mash literature and discourse that has engulfed us in recent times, and show the true natures of both Science and Religion, which can indeed lead to fruitful interactions and positive civilizational outcomes.

Let me close by recalling how Carl Sagan insisted that Science’s rigorous methodology forces us to remain honest against our tendencies to deceive ourselves; this he referred to as “the height of spiritual discipline.” Dyson quotes the novelist Madeleine L’Engle (who died a few months ago): “When I try to find 21st-century mystics, to help me in my own search for meditation and contemplation, I turn to the cellular biologists and astrophysicists, for they are dealing with the nature of being itself, and their questions are theological ones: What is the nature of time? of creation? of life?”

And finally, let me end by reading my two favorite verses of the Qur’an:

“Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, there are indeed Signs for men of understanding, Men who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and reflect on the creation in the heavens and the earth, (with the thought): Our Lord! Not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee!” (3:190-191)

and

“Say: Travel in the land and observe how He originated creation” (29:20).