by Salman Hameed

Here is an intriguing short film (about 20 minutes): Giordano Bruno in Conscious Memory. Bruno, of course, has come to stand in as a symbol for free speech etc., but that is a later construction (see this earlier post: Why was Giordano Bruno burnt at the stake? But this movie, takes it in another direction and presents his broader influence, including on the writings of Shakespeare (they were contemporaries - and some have suggested this connection. I don't know anything about this to comment on it). Despite the acting and some limited camera work, I like the ambitious nature of the short film. Enjoy!

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

I posted this clip several years ago, so I thought I'll post it again. Here is Richard Feynman on doubt, uncertainty and religion. Unlike some of the newer breed of scientists, he states his own beliefs, but does not intend to be offensive to others. This doesn't mean that some people will not take offense to his views - but that is not his intent, and he stays with his personal opinion. It is also his delivery that makes the difference. This is fantastic! One of the best lines in there: "..I can live with doubt...and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong".

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

If you have a chance you should read at least on of the books by primatologist, Frans de Waal. I was introduced to his work with The Ape and the Sushi Master and have been a fan ever since. He works on the origins of morality and is a fantastic writer. His latest book, The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism among the Primates looks at the moral landscape today, including the debates between militant atheism and religion. From a review in Nature:

Frans de Waal's latest book, The Bonobo and the Atheist, is both an exceptionally good

read and a tour de force of scholarship. In it, de Waal states his argument for the evolution of human empathy with the sophistication of a well-grounded, risk-taking scientist who can venture into philosophy.
...
De Waal views extreme strains of atheism as getting “all worked up about the absence of something”, at one point using the fanciful device of a talking bonobo as his mouthpiece (hence the book's title). His view is that religion is undeniably in our bones — even though evidence of primate precursors seems less than substantial. This does not mean that he is pro-religion, however. The Bonobo and the Atheist is permeated with the ethos of secular humanism, using the Renaissance painter Hieronymus Bosch's The Garden of Earthly Delights — a vision of humanity freed from narrow moral constraints — as a touchstone for his arguments. 

In his discussion of empathy and morality, de Waal has little time for what he calls “veneer theories” that reduce altruism to 'natural' selfishness. As he shows, human altruism has analogues in a wide range of species, even though sterile ants' care for the offspring of their queen can hardly be labelled empathy. When dolphins assist humans struggling in the water, we may at least suggest some basic similarities. But when a chimpanzee, sharing more than 95% of our DNA, helps an unrelated member of its group to lick a wound it cannot reach, a type of empathy very near the human is surely coming into play. 

Many evolutionists favour chimpanzees as ancestral models. Whereas de Waal does look frequently to chimpanzees as exemplars of primate altruism, he champions the less violent bonobo — not least because its habitat, like that of our common primate ancestor, remains the tropical forest, whereas chimpanzees and humans have evolved into ecological generalists. 

De Waal looks to mothering and infant care by non-kin, a basic form of empathy discussed by primatologist Sarah Hrdy in Mothers and Others (Harvard University Press, 2011), as the foundation of human altruism and complex cooperation, and as his prime evolutionary building block for morality. He also emphasizes the importance of emotion in moral choices, citing the work of psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind (Allen Lane, 2012). Haidt's empirical investigations of subjects' disgusted reactions to incest demonstrate that when it comes to morality, raw emotions trump rationality.

Read the full review here.

Also, see Frans de Waal's TED talk, Moral Behavior in Animals:


And he recently got embroiled in a controversy when he criticized some of the New Atheists. Here is de Waal's response and this also nicely encapsulates his book:

Having heard the protests by prominent atheists against the excerpt published by salon.com (under the inflammatory banner "Has militant atheism become a religion?"), let me say that the role of religion and atheism covers only about 10% of my book. It is an important part, hence the book title, but needs to be weighed against the rest of my message. In order to discuss the biological origins of morality, which is its central theme, I need to get two groups out of the way. One is fundamentalist religion, for which morality comes from God. The other are the neo-atheists who, by labeling themselves rational and everyone else irrational, have closed the door to open and tolerant debate. Calling believers idiots can't possibly be a good discussion opener. This explains my stance against militant atheism (a label that is not mine, but Dawkins' by the way). 

My book is about how morality doesn't come from above but rather is an evolutionary product. I speak of bottom-up morality, in line with the ideas of some psychologists (Haidt), philosophers and neuroscientists (Kitcher, Churchland). The book is rooted in my research on monkeys, apes, elephants, and other animals, and my conviction that they show the beginnings of morality. I have written about this before, but now I am bringing religion into the mix. Even though I don't think religion is absolutely critical, it is also not irrelevant. The question how humans would fare without it is hard to answer for the simple reason that religion is universal. There are no societies that are not now and never were religious. 

Morality promotes cooperation. It asks us to put our personal interests on the back-burner and work for the common good. It is a complex system that religion and philosophy have tried to capture in simple rules (such as the golden rule or the ten commandments), but these rules provide only imperfect summaries. We like to think of morality as top-down, but this is merely a left-over of the story of God on the mountain top. There is no evidence that it started out as a top-down system. Science is rather coming around to the Humean view of morality guided by intuitions and passions. Looking at other primates, we recognize many of the same tendencies that underlie our morality, such as rules of reciprocity, empathy and sympathy, a sense of fairness, and the need to get along. Monkeys, for example, object to unfair distributions of resources (see the end of my TED talk), and chimpanzees do each other favors even if there is nothing in it for themselves. Bonobos are probably the most empathic animals of all, and the recent genome data places them extremely close to us.
...
Human morality goes beyond all of this, but ancient primate tendencies do play a crucial role. We have been indoctrinated that nature is "red in tooth and claw," and entirely selfish, but we are now learning about conflict resolution, cooperation, empathy, and the like, in our fellow primates. They are far more harmony-oriented than people realize. I don't necessarily call apes "moral beings," but we share with them an old psychology without which we'd never have become moral.

Atheism will need to be combined with something else, something more constructive than its opposition to religion, to be relevant to our lives. The only possibility is to embrace morality as natural to our species. Otherwise atheism will end up in the Big Black Hole that Thomas Henry Huxley created for himself in the 19th Century. He did not believe morality came from God, but also denied its possible evolution. He could not explain where it came from except for saying that we had to fight very hard against our own nature to become moral (which is of course an ancient Christian position related to original sin, and so on). In this, Huxley went against Darwin himself, who did see room for moral evolution, as explained in "The Descent of Man." To debate these important issues we all need to step back, stop shouting, and move beyond unanswerable questions about the existence of God. Atheists should be interested in this debate and I hope they will join in.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Earlier this month, as part of our Science and Religion Lecture Series at Hampshire College, we had a fantastic lecture by Steve Nadler on Spinoza's God (or Nature). Here is your chance to find out if Spinoza was an agnostic, deist, pantheist, or an atheist. Plus, it is fascinating to hear about how Spinoza viewed succumbing to wonder and mystery (this comes out in the Q&A session after the talk). If you have some time, you should definitely check out the lecture.

As a refresher, here is the abstract for the talk:

Abstract:

In 1656, the young Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated from the Amsterdam Portuguese-Jewish community with extreme prejudice; by the end of his short life he was regarded as one of the most radical and dangerous thinkers of his time. Among his alleged "abominable heresies" was, according to one contemporary report, the belief that "God exists only philosophically." In this lecture, we will examine Spinoza's conception of God, whereby God is identified with Nature, and address the question of whether he is, as is so often claimed, a "God intoxicated" pantheist or a devious atheist, as well as the implications of this for his views on religion.

Here is the video of the lecture:


Here is the Q&A session:

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Today would have been Abdus Salam's 87th birthday. I was going to lament the way his name has been shunned in Pakistan - all because he was an Ahmadi Muslim. But instead, I want to highlight the efforts of some dogged, stubborn, and insane Pakistani filmmakers, who against all odds, have been pursuing their dream of making a documentary about Abdus Salam. In fact, I would love to see a documentary about the making of this documentary (where is Werner Herzog?). I first mentioned this project here in 2008 and then provided another update in 2010. I know one of the Executive Producers, Zakir Thaver, quite well - and it has been an absolute delight to see the project move along.

So two things: First, please see a seven minute clip of the film below. It will not only give you an idea of Salam's life, but also of the efforts of the filmmakers. The film has been shot on multiple locations in Pakistan (including the village where Salam was born) as well as in Italy (picture right, at the Salam-founded International Centre for Theoretical Physics), England, and the US.

Second, if you can, please make a contribution for the completion of this project (mostly post-production). Their target is to raise $150,000 - which is quite small for a project of this scale. But every dollar counts. Even if you contribute $10 - that will be of great help. You can make donations here.

In the mean time, congratulations to Zakir, Omar and others involved in the project. This is a superb effort!

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

This week's Economist has an article that talks about the currents status of science in the Muslim world. It takes a broad approach and starts with the dismal state of current science in much of the Muslim world:

THE sleep has been long and deep. In 2005 Harvard University produced more scientific papers than 17 Arabic-speaking countries combined. The world’s 1.6 billion Muslims have produced only two Nobel laureates in chemistry and physics. Both moved to the West: the only living one, the chemist Ahmed Hassan Zewail, is at the California Institute of Technology. By contrast Jews, outnumbered 100 to one by Muslims, have won 79. The 57 countries in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference spend a puny 0.81% of GDP on research and development, about a third of the world average. America, which has the world’s biggest science budget, spends 2.9%; Israel lavishes 4.4%. 

Many blame Islam’s supposed innate hostility to science. Some universities seem keener on prayer than study. Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, for example, has three mosques on campus, with a fourth planned, but no bookshop. Rote learning rather than critical thinking is the hallmark of higher education in many countries. The Saudi government supports books for Islamic schools such as “The Unchallengeable Miracles of the Qur’an: The Facts That Can’t Be Denied By Science” suggesting an inherent conflict between belief and reason.

But then it also talks about the rising publications from Turkey, Iran and other Muslim countries (I have also written about it here on Irtiqa: See the numbers for 2012 here and 2011 here)

In the 2000 to 2009 period Turkey’s output of scientific papers rose from barely 5,000 to 22,000; with less cash, Iran’s went up 1,300, to nearly 15,000. Quantity does not imply quality, but the papers are getting better, too. Scientific journals, and not just the few based in the Islamic world, are citing these papers more frequently. A study in 2011 by Thomson Reuters, an information firm, shows that in the early 1990s other publishers cited scientific papers from Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (the most prolific Muslim countries) four times less often than the global average. By 2009 it was only half as often. In the category of best-regarded mathematics papers, Iran now performs well above average, with 1.7% of its papers among the most-cited 1%, with Egypt and Saudi Arabia also doing well. Turkey scores highly on engineering.

The article then goes on to highlight some of the challenges as well, especially those related to biological evolution. It cites my 2008 paper for the dismal statistics of evolution acceptance in the Muslim world. However, our more recent work based on oral interviews show a much more complicated picture. In particular, we find that people hear different things when they hear the mention of evolution or Darwin, and often times, it has little to do with science. This is also highlighted in the article:

Though such disbelief may be couched in religious terms, culture and politics play a bigger role, says Mr Hameed. Poor school education in many countries leaves minds open to misapprehension. A growing Islamic creationist movement is at work too. A controversial Turkish preacher who goes by the name of Harun Yahya is in the forefront. His website spews pamphlets and books decrying Darwin. Unlike his American counterparts, however, he concedes that the universe is billions of years old (not 6,000 years). 

But the barrier is not insuperable. Plenty of Muslim biologists have managed to reconcile their faith and their work. Fatimah Jackson, a biological anthropologist who converted to Islam, quotes Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the founders of genetics, saying that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. Science describes how things change; Islam, in a larger sense, explains why, she says. 

Others take a similar line. “The Koran is not a science textbook,” says Rana Dajani, a Jordanian molecular biologist. “It provides people with guidelines as to how they should live their lives.” Interpretations of it, she argues, can evolve with new scientific discoveries. Koranic verses about the creation of man, for example, can now be read as providing support for evolution.

And it is great that the article goes on to talk about the work on stem cells research that is going on in Iran - and also in Malaysia, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan:

Other parts of the life sciences, often tricky for Christians, have proved unproblematic for Muslims. In America researchers wanting to use embryonic stem cells (which, as their name suggests, must be taken from human embryos, usually spares left over from fertility treatments) have had to battle pro-life Christian conservatives and a federal ban on funding for their field. But according to Islam, the soul does not enter the fetus until between 40 and 120 days after conception—so scientists at the Royan Institute in Iran are able to carry out stem-cell research without attracting censure.

Here is a broad swath of issues in a condensed manner. Read the full article here. By the way, if you are interested, you should also check out this article from The Chronicle of Higher Education from last year: Does Islam Stand Against Science?

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

I have an article in today's Guardian on the Islam and evolution debate in London last Saturday. Here is an excerpt (and you can also read a longer post on it here):

An imam of an east London mosque, Usama Hasan, received a death threat for arguing in support of human evolution two years ago. On Saturday, London played host to a riveting intrafaith dialogue on Islam's stance on the theory of evolution. The east London imam was one of the speakers – but this time there were others who shared his viewpoint. 

The event, organised by the Deen Institute, was titled Have Muslims Misunderstood Evolution? The speakers included an evolutionary biologist, a biological anthropologist, two theologians and a bona fide creationist. 

It lasted seven hours, yet almost everyone stayed till the end. There were more than 850 people in the audience and even though the topic was sensitive and controversial, there was no heckling or disruption. At least from my limited interactions, it seemed that the audience was comprised mostly of young professionals. Most had no strong opinion, but their interest was evident as they were willing to spend their entire Saturday hearing about Muslim positions on evolution. 

They were not disappointed. 

And here is the concluding paragraph:

Babuna aside, this was a serious debate on an important topic. The rejection of evolution in the face of scientific consensus stands as a Galileo moment for Islam. However, the tone of the debate and the quality of intellectual exchange at the London event is encouraging and it shows modern Muslims have the maturity to address a perceived challenge from a scientific idea.  

Read the full article here.

Also, see another article on the conference by Yasmin Khan - also in the Guardian: Muslims Engage in Quest to Understand Evolution:

More than 850 delegates flocked to a seminal conference in London on Saturday about the compatibility of modern evolutionary theory and Islamic theology – despite scaremongering and the refusal of Islamic student societies to participate. Determined organisers had overcome pressure to cancel by changing the venue from Imperial College to Logan Hall at the University of London. The event was the brainchild of the Deen Institute, which runs courses to promote critical thinking among Muslim students and kindle rational dialogue within Islam. The need for dialogue is urgent, because to date there has been little open discussion within British Muslim communities on this divisive subject. Recent debates in the US suggest that evolution is not as much of a problem theologically to Muslims as it is to Christian creationists, but there is work to be done to clarify the situation.

Read the full article here.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

I'm now back in US and I'm glad that I had a chance to attend the London debate, Have Muslims Misunderstood Evolution? It was organized by The Deen Institute and I posted some quick thoughts on Saturday.

You can find a good summary of each speaker's presentation at Farrukh's blog.

Here are a few reasons why I think the London debate on evolution and Islam may turn out be a game-changer in the way Muslims look at evolutionary biology, and science, in general.

This was an intra-faith debate. There is no question that the topic was controversial. However, the conversation on evolution often gets derailed by common misconceptions and juvenile creationist ideas. The debate would have been a failure, had it been simply between biologists and those who follow Harun Yahya. There is no common ground - as Yahya's group has no understanding of science.

The reason for the success of the debate was that almost all of the speakers (with the exception of Harun Yahya acolyte, Oktar Babuna) accepted the scientific consensus on evolution. Then the question became: Can Muslims reconcile human evolution with their faith? Now this is an important question.

Here are a few take-aways from the London debate:
1. It is crucial for Muslims (and non-Muslims) to know that there are Muslim scientists out there, who not only understand evolution but have thought about its implications for their own personal faith. Both Ehab Abouheif and Fatimah Jackson talked about their own personal belief and the way they reconcile evolution, in particular, human evolution, with Islam. What is important here is that they accept mainstream evolutionary ideas - and not some fringe ideas of directional evolution or the American version of Intelligent Design (ala Irreducible Complexity of bacterium flagellum). Furthermore, they are first rate researchers who take a no nonsense approach to science, and a no nonsense approach to religion. Fatimah Jackson, a convert to islam, teared up when talking about her faith - and she emphasized that no one can question her Iman. She took the position that science tells the how - and not the why.

Both Ehab and Fatimah are spectacular role models for budding Muslim scientists. When a genetics student asked about potential experiments to test evolution, Ehab invited him to join his lab, which is doing cutting-edge research on ant evolution (he has two papers in published in the prestigious journal Science just in 2011!).

2. The theological debate between Usama Hasan and Yasir Qadhi was also interesting. The important thing to note is that both accepted the science of evolution. Usama Hasan's main position was that science is clear on human evolution as well and Islamic theology has room to incorporate it. Yasir Qadhi, on the other hand, said that he has no problem with almost all of evolution, except for human evolution. However, he made it clear that he is not speaking on the science of human evolution, but rather on human evolution from an Islamic theological perspective. He went after Usama, and I think, he was quite condescending towards him. Though to be fair, Yasir Qadhi had also come really prepared for the debate. But if you listen carefully, the difference in their positions is razor-thin.

Why do I say that? On the one hand, Yasir Qadhi insisted that theologically, Muslims cannot accept human evolution. On the other hand, he said that the "maximum we can go" from the theological perspective is to say that Allah inserted Adam in the natural order - and while we may not see any difference, it is actually a miracle. He used the example of dominos. He asserted that Adam was the last domino. Now, in his perspective, we are seeing the last domino, and that domino is specially placed by Allah. However, for non-believers, it may seem to be connected to all other dominos. This way, the miracle of Adam is preserved.

Usama and Yasir could have easily agreed on this point. However, it seemed to me that Yasir was insistent on inflating the differences between his position and Usama's. As it turns out, they both know each other from way back, and their rivalry goes beyond the topic of evolution. Overall, Usama was interested in emphasizing the lessons from history about the changing religious (including Islamic) interpretations in wake of new sciences (for example, earth-centered to sun-centered universe), whereas Yasir was focusing on a close textual reading of the text, claiming that this current interpretation is really definitive.

But notice that overall, this is a subtle debate on the theological acceptance/rejection of human evolution only. Even if one takes a conservative position, almost all of evolution is okay for both of them.

3. The audience was diverse and deeply interested in the topic. There were 800 people in a packed auditorium. The talks started at 11am and went till 6pm (with lunch and prayer breaks), and it was amazing to see that almost all of the audience stayed until the end. This is all the more amazing since most people lined up to get in the auditorium from 9am. Plus, there was no heckling or disruption. This was a very civil debate on a controversial topic. A lot of it had to do with the host, Mariam Francois-Cerrah. She was fantastic in not getting the debate out of hand, and in handling the questions.

But what struck me the most was the diversity in audience members. There were some whose religiosity was explicit (with hijabs, niqabs, beards, etc) and there were others that did not show that. In conversations, I found a film-producer, a pharmacist, a philosophy undergraduate, a chemist, a science communication professional, a hedge-fund manager, an IT professional, a medical doctor, a nurse, a genetics student, a biology postdoc, etc. Most of them were there to simply hear the debate. None of them had a strong position on evolution, one way or the other, but were interested in hearing Muslim positions on it.

It is a shame that the debate did not take place at Imperial College. I had posted a few weeks ago about the opposition to the debate by the Islamic Society there. The success and the tenor of the debate shows that the Islamic Society at Imperial College may simply be a step behind much of the community. Ultimately, it is the students at Imperial College that may have missed out on a high quality debate.

4. The debate exposed the shallowness of Harun Yahya brand of creationism. Those of us who follow Islamic creationism have known this for a while (for example, see the crude quality of his Atlas here). However, the media has often portrayed him and his group as the leading "intellectual voice" of Islamic creationism. However, they only have a few talking points: Evolution is an evil ideology, evolution is false, quoting Darwin out of context, and a constant reference to fossils. Well, Ehab Abouheif in his opening remarks did a fantastic job of neutralizing most of their arguments by showing the common misconceptions about evolution.

This would not have been enough had the debate lasted only hour. People who are not familiar with the debate would have seen two people disagreeing - and would have left undecided. However, the conversation went deeper, in particular with the introduction biological anthropology by Fatimah Jackson, and then a historical and philosophical discussion between Usama Hasan and Yasir Qadhi. The response of Oktar Babuna was - "fossils". The conversation had moved along - but Babuna had nothing new to add. And the audience figured it out. Towards the end, Oktar Babuna was serving as a comic relief. Other panelists would be talking about something substantial, and Oktar Babuna would bring up his fossils. People were rolling in their seats with laughter. I even started feeling bad for him towards the end.

The bottom line is that the Yahya position of no evolution at all (and with almost no change in the DNA) is akin to those who still believe in a universe where the Sun goes around the Earth. Yahya people have been able to gain traction by using evolution as a synonym for atheism and eugenics and by presenting evolution as an ideology pushed by non-Muslims against Islam. Their claim to present an alternative "scientific" idea, however, did not work when they were confronted by world class Muslim biologists. Furthermore, they don't offer any sophisticated theology either.

London is one of the strongholds of the Harun Yahya group amongst Muslims (much more so than most of the Muslim world). The debate may have permanently exposed their shallowness in both Islamic theology and Islam. And yes, even in the evolution debate, Oktar Babuna brought up Mahdi, and the End of Times. (see earlier post on Harun Yahya's fascination with Mahdi and if sees himself as The One).

5. Ultimately, this was a grown-up debate. This shows a maturity within Islam on dealing with a serious challenge from a scientific idea. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction, The Deen Institute managed to bring together a fantastic panel that engaged with the topic. And this can serve as a good model for other issues as well (freedom of speech, gender equity, etc.). I'm curious to the see the direction they will take after this event.

There is going to be a circus reaction as well. There will be some who will be upset by the debate. The Harun Yahya people will also go on the offensive and may try to manufacture a controversy. It will be unfortunate, if the press focused on some of the outliers.

This is a long post - but I think this was an important event.

Related posts:
A Riveting Session on Islam and Evolution in London
Opposition to Evolution and Islam Debate at Imperial College?

Here is a picture of a section of the crowd at the debate:

And here are the speakers along with couple organizers:

(from left to right: one of the organizers, Mariam Francois-Cerrah, Fatimah Jackson, Adam Deen, Yasir Qadhi, Usama Hasan, Ehab Abouheif, one of the organizers)

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Here is a 1988 interview with Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and Arthur C. Clarke. I was thinking about Clarke as a I recently re-watched 2001: A Space Odyssey (see the post here). In any case, check out this video. There is an interesting discussion of the nature of ET and God starting from 27 minutes mark and it ends with a question on creativity. Ah - interviews used to be a good exchange of ideas, before people like Bill O'Reilly started shouting at their guests. Here is the video (with apologies to readers in Pakistan - where YouTube is still insanely banned since Sept 17th...):

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

One of our goals this break is to watch most of major Kubrick films again on Blu Ray. We started with 2001: A Space Odyssey - and I watched the film in entirety after almost 20 years. And I had forgotten how spectacular and breathtaking the film is. Every shot of film is perfect!

Every set - and there many many futuristic sets - is done meticulously. And the choice of music, of course, is amazing. But one thing that really stuck out for me was the use of sound. If the perspective is from space, there is no sound. I think Kubrick is very consistent about that. But he would sometimes have the perspective of an astronaut from inside the helmet, and then you hear breathing as well as the hissing sound of oxygen. Well - many times he uses the variation in breathing to create suspense, tension, and even sometimes a sense wonder and/or bewilderment. This is just brilliant! I had also forgotten about the details of the chilling scene of Dave - in his pod holding a dead astronaut - staring down HAL in the ship bound for Jupiter. Here is a picture - but the picture doesn't do justice to the way the scene unfolds in the film.

In any case, the question of God is part of the film. Kubrick did believe that some notion of God is at the heart of the film. But then his (and Arthur C Clarke's) version God veered more in the direction of super-intelligent extraterrestrials, i.e. intelligent civilizations will be indistinguishable to us from gods. There are a lot of Extras in the Blu Ray edition of 2001, and I was struck by a fantastic quote from Kubrick about the universe. Here it is:

The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent. 

But if we can come to terms with this indifference, then our existence as a species can have genuine meaning.  

However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.

Very cool. Now if you have a chance, see 2001 again - and please see it in its entirety and on the biggest screen available to you (not on a computer or an iPad).

We are scheduled for one of Kubrick's most beautiful, but very underrated film, Barry Lyndon on Sunday.

In the mean time, here is the original trailer for 2001: A Space Odyssey:

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Here is a fascinating real life story involving an astrophysicist and her relationship with a musician. And  how that all parallels with the way she think about cosmology. Okay - you have to check out the story - especially because she is a fantastic story-teller.

Here is The Moth episode on Life on a Mobius Strip (tip Leyla Keough):

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Last month I presented at a lively panel session on Islam and Evolution in Boston. It was organized by American Islamic Congress and its Project Nur. Now John Farrell has provided a summary of the session and a highlight video from the panel on his Progressive Download blog at Forbes. By the way, John is the author of a fantastic book about Belgian cosmologist and priest, Georges Lemaitre.

Here is John Farrell talking about Ehab Abouheif, his cutting edge research in evolutionary biology, and his faith:

So, it was fascinating to hear from evolutionary biologists like Ehab Abouheif, who runs his own lab at McGill, that doing science and practicing the family’s ancestral faith does not prompt any contradiction. 

Abouheif and his team made a splash earlier this year with the discovery that many species of ants retain dormant genes that can be reactivated to generate an entire caste of ‘super-soldiers.’ [His team's paper was published in the January 6 2012 issue of Science.] 

When he came to Boston University last month at the request of Project Nur and the American Islamic Congress, Abouheif not only shared his personal thoughts on religion as a scientist and a practicing Muslim, but he also shared his concerns about the consequences for Islamic countries that fail to embrace the scientific tradition. 

“There’s a lot at stake here,” he said, “because it’s well beyond evolution. If it’s not about the evidence, if you reject science, if you reject evolution as a science and you’re not willing to listen to evidence, then that means that for all of science, when it comes into contact with sociological, political conflicts, then you won’t believe it either.”

But ultimately he asks the question:

What’s interesting from my perspective is –whatever the immediate difficulties facing Muslim countries as they grapple with democracy and technology– in the broader intellectual scheme, I think science does not pose as many challenges to doctrine in Islam as it seems to pose to traditional Christianity. 

Or is it soon to tell?

I think it is too early to tell. If issues like the rejection of evolution become a matter of Muslim identity for most Muslims, as young earth creationism has become for many Evangelicals in the US, then we are going to see a conflicts with biology. But at present, there seems to be enough flexibility for many Muslims  to accept not just microbial evolution, but also animal evolution, including that of humans.

Here is the highlight video from the panel prepared by John Farrell:


Perspectives on Islam and Evolution from Farrellmedia on Vimeo.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Here is an excellent talk by Sean Carroll, From Particles to People: The Laws of Nature and the Meaning of Life, that looks at what we know about the universe and how we can rule out certain things (like astrology) from even realm of possibility. The last part of the talk focuses on the way we look for the meaning of life. A fantastic talk and highly enjoyable.


Here is how he describes it at his blog, Cosmic Variance:

There are actually three points I try to hit here. The first is that the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood. There is an enormous amount that we don’t know about how the world works, but we actually do know the basic rules underlying atoms and their interactions — enough to rule out telekinesis, life after death, and so on. The second point is that those laws are dysteleological — they describe a universe without intrinsic meaning or purpose, just one that moves from moment to moment. 

The third point — the important one, and the most subtle — is that the absence of meaning “out there in the universe” does not mean that people can’t live meaningful lives. Far from it. It simply means that whatever meaning our lives might have must be created by us, not given to us by the natural or supernatural world. There is one world that exists, but many ways to talk about; many stories we can imagine telling about that world and our place within it, without succumbing to the temptation to ignore the laws of nature. That’s the hard part of living life in a natural world, and we need to summon the courage to face up to the challenge.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

One of our most delightful speakers for our Science & Religion Lecture Series was Lawrence Principe from Johns Hopkins University. He has a doctorate in chemistry as well as history of science. And Robert Boyle is his guy. He now has a new book out called The Secrets of Alchemy. Here is an excerpt from an enthusiastic review in last week's Nature:

Around 1680, Robert Boyle, author of The Sceptical Chymist (1660), described meeting a stranger who demonstrated an unusual experiment. Tipping some ruby-coloured powder onto the blade of a knife, he cast it into a crucible of molten lead. The lead congealed into “very yellow” metal, which Boyle's tests proved — in his estimation — to be pure gold. 

Boyle's account, retold by Lawrence Principe, drives home a problem facing all scholars of alchemy: why, across the ages, have so many intelligent people been convinced by the promise of metallic transmutation? The Secrets of Alchemy comes closer than any other single work to explaining the grounds — rational and empirical, as well as religious and wishful — for alchemy's longevity. 

Principe's delightful writing style brings to life a depth of learning matched by few in the field. This expertise, coupled with the author's determination to strip his topic of anachronism, sets The Secrets of Alchemy apart from the usual introductory tome. After comments on alchemy's lingering popular appeal (think Harry Potter and Fullmetal Alchemist), Principe engages with the misconceptions that have long dogged his subject, particularly its association with magic, mysticism and quackery. A key premise of the book is that these are often modern associations. To understand how alchemy 'worked' for its practitioners, we must meet them on their own terms.

And it includes a broader discussion of history as well as the roots of later misconceptions:

Principe traces the theory, practice and context of alchemy from its origins in Egypt in the first few centuries AD to its development and maturity in the medieval Islamic lands and Latin Europe. He then engages with Enlightenment critiques of transmutation, tracing their consequences up to today before returning to alchemy's “Golden Age” in Renaissance Europe. 

Some will recognize elements from Principe's earlier work: the argument that 'alchemy' and 'chemistry' overlapped in the early modern world (and so should be referred to simply as 'chymistry'); his concern that Enlightenment polemics and nineteenth-century fads have distorted alchemy's modern reception; and his view that even the alchemists' most outrageous allegories may disguise genuine chemical effects. In sum, he does not believe that alchemists made gold, but does show that they were serious in the attempt.

In addition, Principe also replicates some of the medieval alchemical experiments and tries to show the intent of the original authors.

Like Boyle, Principe recognizes that sceptics will be convinced only by displays of incontrovertible expertise. The book is at its most fascinating when Principe reveals glimpses of his own skill. A chemist as well as a historian, he has recreated a range of alchemical experiments, revealing the practical foundations of seemingly opaque alchemical instructions. The first chapter opens with a recipe from one of the earliest surviving metallurgical treatises, the third-century Leiden Papyrus. The process can be easily replicated, producing a golden patina on a silver ingot. And if Principe's photographic evidence does not convince, an endnote gives instructions on how to do it yourself.

And perhaps, the most important lesson here is to recognize the differences in the way individuals conceptualized the natural world in the medieval or early modern world versus the way we think of science today:

So was Boyle a scientist, alchemist, apologist or interpreter? For that matter, how about Principe? As the book suggests, modern readers can profitably reflect on how they use such distinctions. 

For, as Principe concludes, alchemy cannot simply be reduced to chemical procedures. Many practitioners subscribed to a widely held belief in the 'connectedness' of humans, God and nature. In this world view, analogy had demonstrative as well as illustrative power: similarity between small-scale and large-scale phenomena might offer clues to unseen laws of nature. Such correspondences strike us in alchemical writing, because they have disappeared from modern scientific discourse. The Secrets of Alchemy reminds that too-selective reading can mask the influence of such views on the past science we now accept as canonical. After Isaac Newton's Principia, why not browse his theology — or alchemy?

Fantastic! Read the full review here (you may need subscription to access it). Also check out Lawrence Principe's excellent short course on Science and Religion and a longer one on History of Science: Antiquity to 1700 at the Teaching Company.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

I will be participating in a discussion over Islam and Evolution on Boston University campus this coming Wednesday (Oct 24th). The event is organized by American Islamic Congress and its Project Nur (they had another event in Iowa this past April on Cosmology and Islam. Also see this post). I'm excited about the event. The panel is fantastic - so I hope this will be a lively session.

If you live in or near the Boston area, come to the program.

Here is the full announcement:

Reconciling Muslim Tradition and the Theory of Evolution 

Time: Wednesday October 24, 2012 6:00 pm
Venue: Boston University Photonics Center Colloquium Room
Address:  8 Saint Mary’s Street, 9^th Floor, Boston, MA 02215
Halal food will be served. 

To reserve your free ticket, click here. 

The fascinating dialogue between science and Christianity has gone on for centuries. But we seldom hear a public debate on intersection of Islam and science. That is why American Islamic Congress and Project Nur have launched a groundbreaking series of public dialogues to illuminate the relationships Muslims have with the sciences.
This fall’s dialogue at Boston University will focus on one of the most contentious issues in the field – evolution. Top scholars from across the sciences will meet to explore how men and women of Muslim backgrounds reconcile evolutionary theory with scripture, theology, and personal belief – or whether they do so at all. 

Keynote: Salman Hameed, Associate Professor of Integrated Sciences and Humanites at Hampshire College and Director of the Center for the Study of Science in Muslim Societies 

Panelists: Ehab Abouheif, Research Chair in Evolutionary Developmental Biology and Principal Investigator, Abouheif Lab, McGill University; Rana Dajani, Assistant Professor of Molecular Biology and Director, Centre for Studies, Hashemite University; Omar Sultan Haque, Postdoctoral Fellow, Psychology, Harvard University and Psychiatry and Law, Harvard Medical School, and Co-Director, UNESCO Chair in Bioethics, American Unit.

In addition, Elise Burton from Harvard University will be moderating the session.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Steve Paulson has a knack for asking probing questions about science and religion. He did that in his excellent book, Atoms and Eden: Conversations on Science and Religion. You should definitely check it out if you are interested in knowing how scientists and philosophers navigate the questions of science and religion, and you will find a full range of responses in his book. So it is again a pleasure to read his interview of neuroscientist, Christof Koch. Here are some of the questions that are relevant for the blog:

You like big philosophical questions, don't you?
Koch: Well, I think a lot about my place in the universe. What are we doing here? How did we come about? Does it mean anything? I like to think about these problems. You know, usually you ask these questions when you're 18 and 19, and then you get on with the business of living. Even at my age, I still ask these questions because I want to know how it all fits together before I die.
...
You write about how you grew up an observant Catholic and then lost your faith in a personal god. But it seems that the search for meaning, that yearning for the absolute, is still with you.
Koch: That's correct. I try to be guided by what's scientifically plausible. Of course, there is a huge amount of randomness, but we also find ourselves in this universe that is very conducive to life. I don't know how to explain it, but I see this arrow of progress toward an ever-larger complexity and to a larger consciousness and that fills me. I don't know what it means. I can't understand it but I see it. I observe it and I'm happy about it.
So you're not exactly an atheist.Koch: I'm not a conventional atheist who believes it's all just a random formation. I believe there is meaning. But as you said, I don't believe in a personal god or any of the standard things that you're supposed to believe as a Christian.

Your book suggests that you're a deist, maybe believing there's some sort of supreme being that created the laws of the universe but does not intervene in it.
Koch: I don't know. I grew up with that picture in mind, which is very difficult to get rid of when you acquire it in your formative years. This God I have in mind is very ephemeral. It's much closer to Spinoza's God than to the God of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. The mystic Angelus Silesius, who was a contemporary of Descartes, had this wonderful quote: "God is a lucent nothing, no Now nor Here can touch him." It's totally different from any conventional conception of a god. In fact, it's much closer to Buddhist thought than to any monotheistic religion. I just grew up calling this "God" because that's my tradition, but it's not any god that we in the Western world would recognize. There isn't an old guy with a beard who watches over us.

Do you look for meaning in the world of science?Koch: I find meaning in science. It's this incredibly beautiful thing. Isn't it a wonder that we can understand the universe using mathematics that's comprehensible to our minds? That's just absolutely amazing. There's no law in the universe that says it should be like that. Physics can make predictions about the shape of the early universe. We can predict the size and the pitch of the initial bang in the universe. That's just amazing that the universe actually is comprehensible to our minds. So that fills me with great contentment.

Koch also worked with Francis Crick, a Nobel-Laureate and the co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule. Crick was also a prominent and vocal atheist. Here is the part of the interview where Koch talks about Crick and his atheism. I think the anecdote about what Crick was doing 2 hours before his death is absolutely phenomenal:

What was it like to work with someone who was so brilliant?Koch: Sheer joy and pleasure. So often he would take the same fact that I read and he would come to a startling new conclusion. He made this jump because he connected these facts to, say, something he'd done earlier in molecular biology. He was very good at using metaphors and analogies from other fields. Later on he didn't sleep well, so he would often lie awake at night and think about these things and come to the breakfast table with great new ideas. He wasn't afraid of continuously throwing out ideas. Many of them were crazy. Many were interesting but didn't work. Occasionally there were wonderful ideas. He just generated so many more ideas than other people did. 

Crick was also an ardent atheist. In fact, didn't he leave Churchill College in Cambridge because they built a chapel over his objections?Koch: That's correct. I was just at Churchill College and I visited the college because of that story. 

Given your own background as a Catholic, did you talk much about religion with Crick?Koch: We did. He was gentle with respect to my faith. When I first met him I still went to church and took my family there. He didn't push me in any aggressive way. He knew I had some religious sensibilities but it didn't impede our ability to have vigorous discussions about the neural correlates of consciousness. I guess his ardor for fighting against religion had cooled by the time I met him. 

Did you ever push back? Did you ever challenge his atheist assumptions?Koch: No. We once had a very interesting discussion about death. It's one of the things I greatly admire about him. Not only that he was a genius and a great inspiration, but also his attitude about dying. He knew he had a short time to live because he had colon cancer. Every morning when I came in, we talked a bit about the current state of his health but then he would say, "Okay, let's move onto more interesting things" and we would talk about science. He kept that attitude until the bitter end. Two hours before he passed away, he dictated to his secretary the last correction to one of our papers. He knew he was going to die but he didn't let it interfere with the business of trying to understand how consciousness arises from the brain. 

And here is Koch's take on the issue of soul:

Maybe the old religious definitions of the soul are outdated. Is part of your project trying to formulate a new, science-based idea of the soul?
Koch: These theories about the complexity of consciousness are essentially a 21st century conception of the soul. The soul in this case is conscious experience. It's attached to certain physical systems. They could be computers or biological systems. However, unlike the classical soul from Plato onwards, the soul disappears if this physical system is destroyed. 

This is not a soul that can survive death.Koch: It could in principle survive death by using technology - if my brain has some fancy reconstruction technology to transcribe it into software on silicon. In principle this simulacrum could survive death and have aspects of the old me. Unless I have a backup code, my soul dies when my brain dies. End of game, unfortunately.

Read the full interview here.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Our inaugural Friday Irtiqa Journal Club starts with a paper by Nasser Mansour: Science Teachers' Views of Science and Religion vs. the Islamic Perspective: Conflicting or Compatible?

I think this was a slightly longer paper than would be good for the venue. I will try to pick papers on the shorter side - but sometimes the choices are limited.

Summary:
The results in the paper are based on open-ended written surveys with 75 Egyptian science teachers, with follow-up interviews with 15 of the participants. I think it is important to note that the study is not based in Cairo or Alexandria - the large cosmopolitan cities of Egypt. The teachers in the study are from the Gharbia Governorate of Egypt, whose capital, Tanta, is located between Cairo and Alexandria. It is quite possible that we are seeing more conservative views on science and religion than we would find in the larger cities. 

The key finding of the paper reaffirms the idea that religion is central for these science teachers, and their views on science are shaped through that particular lens: 

[T]he findings suggest that participants’ views of the relationship between science and a specific religion (Islam) confirmed the centrality of teachers’ personal religious be- liefs to their own thoughts and views concerning issues of both science and Islam. This centralization, in some cases, appeared to lead teachers to hold a conflicting relationship, hence to a creation of a false contradiction between science and Islam. Therefore, it could be concluded that teachers’ personal Islamic-religious beliefs inform their beliefs about the nature of science and its purpose.

And this is how they viewed the relation between science and religion:

The numbers are relatively small, but yet it is striking that most of the teachers view integration as the mode of science and religion interaction. I was also struck by the fact that "Dialogue" for most teachers meant science in the service of religion. 

For some reason when talking about these results the author lumped the conflict and independence categories into one, which I think is not only problematic but also did not seem warranted based on the responses he got for the two categories. But this is what he says about it: 

The teachers in the second group, those who perceived a conflicting or an independent relationship between science and religion, however, see science as suspect, either because of the unreliability of scientific methods or the need to use different methods to consider something from an alternative viewpoint.

Interestingly, some of the conflict responses stemmed from the "eurocentric" impression of science and a distrust of western knowledge. But the numbers are too small (5)  to make too much of it.

But the author, in general, also found that some science teachers in the survey held a "naive" views of the nature of science and of religion itself: 

In this study, some teachers did not ascribe just to naive views of NOS but also to naive views of the Islamic perspective of science and scientific investigation. They argued that science is an ever-changing phenomenon and scientists’ assumptions and predictions may be wrong, whereas the teachings of Islam are eternal and not subject to human error. The purpose of doing research in science, they argued, is to validate the Qur’an or establish the truth of the Qur’an.

A few additional comments on the paper: 
1. I think the key results from the paper are not that surprising - but it is important to conduct these studies. It is clear that religion plays a dominant role in the worldview of these science teachers, and they evaluate everything from that perspective. Therefore, it is a reasonable suggestion to suggest that the training of teachers take this background into account. 

2. My main criticism of the paper lies in the fact that the Mansour uses a normative definition of the relationship between Islam and science (these are peppered throughout the paper), and described it as positive. He uses examples from history to make his point. Two problems with this approach: 

First, we have to be careful when using the term "science" historically, especially in ascribing it to medieval times. The nature of scientific inquiry has changed a lot over the past few centuries, and it is difficult to say much about the relationship between "science" and "religion" during that time. 

Second, and there is no single relation between Islam and science. It depends on what specifics are we talking about. Islam is interpreted by individuals. If one interprets that there the mountains and valleys were formed because of a worldwide flood, then for that interpretation, there is a clash between Islam and science. Ditto, if one interprets Islamic doctrines to say that humans are not a product of evolution from prior animals (a question about evolution was part of the survey in the paper). On the other hand, if one has an interpretation that allows plate tectonics for geology and evolution for the rise of humans, then there is no clash. Or some may find an interpretation that may lend itself for dialogue or integration. But all and all, there is no single relation between Islam and science - rather there is multitude of relations depending on interpretations and on what particular scientific idea we are talking about. In fact, there are often contradictory views within individuals (for example, Big Bang theory - dialogue; biological evolution - clash), and it will be fascinating to explore how some of these science teachers deal with contradictions.  

3. This is more for my own research interest, but I noticed that the question on evolution was included in the written-survey. However, Mansour only talked about it in the clash narrative. But the vast majority talked about dialogue and integration models, and I'm curious to see how they viewed evolution. I think this will highlight the complexity of the responses and they may not fall neatly into Barbour's four categories used in the paper.

4. I think the paper underscores the need to explain how science is done and why people do it. This is a science education problem worldwide, but perhaps the issue gets exacerbated in places where religion may be considered as an arbiter for how nature works. 

Thoughts from others? Also, this is the first attempt at the journal club format. Let me know if you have suggestions on that as well.

I will post the title of the paper for next Friday's journal club later today.

_________________
Mansour, N. (2011), Science Teachers' Views of Science and Religion vs. the Islamic Perspective: Conflicting or Compatible?, Sci. Ed., 95: 281–309. doi: 10.1002/sce.20418

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

One of the best things in graduate school was journal club. This was the best way to keep up to date with the literature. The idea behind journal club was to pick a paper from research literature and then have a discussion of the findings amongst faculty and students. I have been meaning to start a similar thing on this blog for a while. I know that the audience on this blog, like elsewhere on the blogosphere, varies a lot in professional and academic backgrounds. The journal articles are usually aimed at other academics (including graduate students) working in the field. But of course, everyone is welcome to chime in on the paper - but preferably after reading the paper (or at least after skimming the paper).

What kind of papers will be picked? Well, of course, there will be a bias towards topics that are often presented at Irtiqa (well - this should definitely match your interests, since you are reading this blog). I will announce the title of the journal paper on Wednesday Friday (1 week before) and will provide a link to the journal. There is a good chance that you will need a electronic library access to read the paper. If you can't find the paper and are interested in reading it, send me an e-mail, and I will send you the pdf. If this becomes too odious, I may provide the pdf for couple of days directly on the blog - but I don't want to run afoul of (serious) copyright violations.

These things take some time to get into a rhythm. I will start it up this coming Friday (I know it is a bit soon) and will highlight some of the key results from a journal paper. I also want to plug for an excellent blog, Epiphenom, that regularly provides excellent summaries of journal papers related to science and religion.

What is on for this coming Friday? Well, I thought we will start with issues of science and religion in the Muslim world. So lets talk about a recent paper that addresses the views of Egyptian science teachers:
Science Teachers' Views of Science and Religion vs. the Islamic Perspective: Conflicting or Compatible? by Nasser Mansour (Science Education, Volume 95, Issue 2, pages 281–309, March 2011).

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

The Library of Congress recently announced a list of Books That Shaped America. Yes, it includes books by authors like Mark Twain, Faulkner, Hemingway, F Scott Fitzgerald, etc. But Sagan's Cosmos is also on the list. It is great to see a book about science and the spirit of inquiry to be a part of it. There are couple of science fiction books on the list as well (Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein). On the negative side, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is also part of the list. I guess, the shaping didn't go right all the time.

On another Sagan related matter, the creator of Family Guy and the director of the hilarious Ted (yes - I know it is about a potty-mouthed teddy bear, but it was funny! And please don't confuse it with TED talks either...), Seth MacFarlane, has donated collection of Sagan's papers and other things to create an archive at the Library of Congress. From Science:

Archivists at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., face a daunting task: painting a picture of noted astronomer Carl Sagan using 750,000 objects and documents he saved over the course of his life. 

The Seth MacFarlane Collection of the Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan Archive, donated to the library by television producer and Sagan fan Seth MacFarlane, contains notes, doodles, and correspondence from the astronomer who brought the universe into people's living rooms. The sheer number and diversity of items will keep the archive team busy for a full year. 

This is a multimedia collection, says Leonard Bruno, project head and science manuscript historian at the library. “There are lots of photos, videotapes, audio cassettes, technical reports from his work with NASA, a quilt with mathematical equations on it, and even a dry erase board with the story board for Sagan's movie, Contact, Bruno says. The collection also includes the scientist's report cards, undergraduate notes, fan mail, and early research. Archivists must prepare each article separately, carefully examining, grouping, and placing them in storage containers that will protect them from the environment. 

This new collection takes its place alongside scientific manuscripts from figures such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and E. O. Wilson. The library plans to open Sagan's works to the public in November 2013.

Very cool!  In case you are wondering, what was Sagan's planned reading list at the University of Chicago, here is a snapshot:

                     

From the Library of Congress blog:

One such gem is a list of “outside readings” that Sagan planned to tackle in the fall of 1954 while attending the University of Chicago. Among the literary works on the list are André Gide’s The Immoralist, Aldous Huxley’s short story “Young Archimedes,” Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, and what appears to be the first volume of Star Science Fiction Stories (1953), which includes stories by Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, and Arthur C. Clarke, among others.

Also check out here a digitized copy of a letter to Warner Brothers about the movie Contact.

Read More »

by Salman Hameed

Here is a fascinating talk by Jonathan Israel about how Radical Enlightenment scholars viewed Islam. First of all, he cautions against considering the Enlightenment as a unified movement. He includes Voltaire, Locke, Hume, and Motesquieu in Moderate Enlightenment while Spinoza, Bayle, and Diderot as part of Radical Enlightenment. The latter was mostly underground in the 18th century but its ideas included not only a fundamental primacy of reason, but it also called for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscious, and considered democracy as the best form of government.

What is interesting is that these Radical Enlightenment scholars looked up to medieval Muslim freethinkers, and considered Islam to be a tolerant and progressive religion. These connections were sometimes accurate and deep, and sometimes not - but it gives a broader sense of how these set of scholars viewed Islam. About 40 minutes into the lecture, Jonathan Israel talks about the references to al-Warraq, al-Rawandi, and al-Razi and also about the positive perception of Ibn-Rushd. In addition, he suggests that al-Arabi's sufi ideas of unity may have inspired pan-theistic philosophies in the 17th century (for Spinoza?). Here is an illustration from 1727 by Bernart Picart for an encyclopedia of comparative religions - the first of its kind, and note that the person at the front-right is a Muslim scholar, depicted in a positive light (the first few minutes of the lecture are dedicated to this image):

Also, check out the last couple of minutes of the lecture video. In answering one of the questions, Israel once again draws a line between moderate and radical Enlightenments. While Voltaire, Hume etc. were okay with racism and an the basic imperial ideas, much of the values of the modern world have been shaped by this underground movement of the 18th century.

Here is the video of the talk (Sorry - I can't embed it): The Islamic World and the Radical Enlightenment: Toleration, Freethinking and Personal Liberty by Jonathan Israel.

Also, the Warburg Institute is hosting a series of talks this month on the theme of Islam and the Enlightenment. Here is the schedule:

Thursday 3 May, 6.15 - 7.45 p.m.Jan Loop (The Warburg Institute), Islam and the Enlightenment. An introduction.
Wednesday 9 May, 4.15 - 5.45 p.m.Rolando Minuti (Florence), Islam in Montesquieu’s writings and thought.
Monday 14 May, 4.15 - 5.45 p.m.Jonathan Israel (Princeton), An Islamic Radical Enlightenment? The Philosophes and their perceptions of the Arabic world.
Thursday 17 May, 6.15 - 7.45 p.m.Maurits van den Boogert (Leiden), Sir James Porter (1710–1776) and his 'Observations on the Religion, Law, Government, and Manners of the Turks' (1768)
Tuesday 29 May, 6.15 - 7.45 p.m.Simon Mills (Cambridge), Joseph White (1745-1814) and Arabic Studies in eighteenth-century England.

This is very cool! Hope there are videos of these talks.

Read More »