Volume 5, Issue 1 (2025)
jpt 2025, 5(1): 109-120 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Zarvandi J, Lezgi A, Farsian K. Plantinga and Al-Ghazali; Compatibility of Science and Religious Beliefs. jpt 2025; 5 (1) :109-120
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-79720-en.html
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-79720-en.html
1- Department of Theology, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Shahid Satari University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Theology, Faculty of Theology, Imam Ali University, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Philosophy, Wisdom and Logic, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Theology, Faculty of Theology, Imam Ali University, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Philosophy, Wisdom and Logic, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Full-Text [PDF 623 kb]
(60 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (255 Views)
Full-Text: (2 Views)
Introduction
Some atheists commonly claim that modern science supports a form of atheism. They argue that science rejects the existence of entities like God, angels, and other supernatural beings, suggesting that religious beliefs—such as the idea that God created the world—lack justification in their view. On the other hand, a theistic perspective argues that scientific propositions are not incompatible with theism. This viewpoint holds that religious and scientific propositions can represent two sides of the same truth or, at the least, have a compatible relationship. In this paper, we aim to show that the claims made by atheists—that science supports their view—are not persuasive. Furthermore, if compatibility exists, it is more likely to be found between the scientific and theistic perspectives.
Plantinga versus Naturalism
Naturalism asserts that the only reality exists within the knowledge provided by natural sciences, dismissing concepts like God or divine entities as non-existent [Plantinga, 1996: 369]. This perspective challenges theism, which includes beliefs in miracles, divine revelation, and God’s creation. In "Where the Conflict Really Lies?", Plantinga argues that theism and scientific belief can coexist. His epistemology suggests that a theistic view of the relationship between God, the natural world, and human beings makes our perceptions and cognitive capacities reliable. Therefore, the scientific theories we develop can also be considered trustworthy. Conversely, naturalism, which sees humans as products of unguided Darwinian evolution, undermines the reliability of our cognitive faculties, making it unreasonable to trust any theories, including evolution. Plantinga claims that embracing naturalism while believing in scientific theories is self-defeating [Nagel, 2023: 208-209].
For Plantinga, any account of knowledge must include an explanation of "warrant," a condition true beliefs must meet to be considered knowledge. Our cognitive faculties—perception, memory, rational intuition, and induction—play a role in forming basic beliefs [Plantinga, 2000: 147]. If these faculties operate under "proper functioning," they are reliable and provide warrants for true beliefs. Notably, Plantinga introduces the divine sense, or sensus divinitatis, as a human cognitive faculty that allows for innate awareness of God or divinity [Plantinga, 2000: 148]. When functioning properly, the divine sense can support knowledge-based beliefs about God.
Here is a challenge to consider. Occasionally, we come to realize that our cognitive faculties, which shape our beliefs, can lead us astray. When overwhelming evidence contradicts our memories, we must acknowledge their fallibility. But what should we do when evidence challenges our religious beliefs? Plantinga asserts that we should not simply abandon those beliefs. Instead, he suggests that believers should seek to interpret the sacred text related to them. Augustine employed this approach when discussing creation, and it also served as inspiration for Plantinga [Nagel, 2023: 213].
Theism in Plantinga's Epistemology
In Plantinga's epistemology, the theistic approach provides a clear explanation for the possibility of science. The theist confidently claims that the alignment between the natural world and our understanding reflects God's intention, whereas the naturalist finds it challenging to articulate this connection. Consequently, naturalism and scientism are fundamentally different, and the perceived tension between theism and scientism is not merely superficial; in reality, a profound harmony exists between them [Nagel, 2023: 213].
Plantinga's argument can be articulated as follows [Plantinga, 2011: 344-345]:
1. The reliability of our cognitive faculties is questionable, as naturalism and evolution suggest.
2. If someone subscribes to naturalism and evolution, the low probability of their cognitive faculties being reliable indicates they must possess counter-evidence regarding this reliability.
3. A single objection to the reliability of their cognitive faculties would also undermine all beliefs formed by those faculties, including their belief in naturalism and evolution.
4. Therefore, a belief in naturalism and evolution ultimately leads to contradicting evidence, making it unreasonable to accept these views.
According to Plantinga's argument, the theistic view of science is preferable to the atheistic naturalistic view, which is not even defensible.
Islamic Philosophy of Religion
The relationship between religious and scientific teachings has been discussed in Islamic philosophy and theology. We can identify three main positions on this issue. The first position is quite extreme, asserting that reason alone is sufficient and that there is no need for the Muslim holy book, the Quran [Stroumsa, 1999: 107]. This view is associated with Abu Bakr al-Razi [McGinnis, 2023]. The second position starkly contrasts al-Razi's perspective, claiming that reason and scientific reasoning have no connection to religious teachings. Proponents of this view argue that only a religious authority, specifically a prophet, is needed to impart knowledge about God. This stance not only dismisses the role of reason but also denies the possibility of interpreting the sacred text [McGinnis, 2023].
The third perspective, held by various Muslim philosophers and theologians, suggests that while reason and scientific reasoning help form religious beliefs, sacred texts remain essential for understanding religion. Philosophers like Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Ibn Tufail, and Averroes advocate that reason and religious tradition coexist equally in religious epistemology [McGinnis, 2023]. Conflicts arise not between religion and reason but between reason and religious texts [Hoseini Shahroodi & Mashhadi, 2011: 2]. This tension can be resolved through hermeneutical interpretation of the sacred texts, which will be discussed in the next section.
The origin of this idea can be traced back to al-Farabi, who believed that true religious beliefs are symbolic expressions of philosophical truths that can be validated by science and philosophy. Therefore, when conflicts arise between philosophical theories and religious teachings, it is essential to recognize that the meaning of religious texts may not be found in their literal expressions [Farabi, 1985: 276–285].
Abu Hamid al-Ghazali further emphasizes this idea. He argues that since the Qur’an cannot contain contradictions, any statements that appear contradictory should be reinterpreted. Al-Ghazali asserts that any religious claim that "reason declares to be impossible" must be understood metaphorically.
Al-Ghazali and Hermeneutics
There is a connection between Plantinga's Augustinian method and Ghazali's approach to interpreting sacred texts. In Ghazali's view, the principle of non-contradiction, a rational rule, leads us to find a deeper understanding of the Quranic text. His criterion for interpreting God's word is that we can demonstrate, through rational argument, that the meaning inferred from the apparent text of the Quran can sometimes lead us to accept contradictions [Al-Ghazali, 2002: 85]. Interpretation, therefore, involves moving from the superficial meaning to a deeper figurative understanding based on rational evidence [Al-Ghazali, 1904: 387]. This perspective includes a hierarchical ontology structured as follows [Al-Ghazali, 2002: 79-81]:
Some atheists commonly claim that modern science supports a form of atheism. They argue that science rejects the existence of entities like God, angels, and other supernatural beings, suggesting that religious beliefs—such as the idea that God created the world—lack justification in their view. On the other hand, a theistic perspective argues that scientific propositions are not incompatible with theism. This viewpoint holds that religious and scientific propositions can represent two sides of the same truth or, at the least, have a compatible relationship. In this paper, we aim to show that the claims made by atheists—that science supports their view—are not persuasive. Furthermore, if compatibility exists, it is more likely to be found between the scientific and theistic perspectives.
Plantinga versus Naturalism
Naturalism asserts that the only reality exists within the knowledge provided by natural sciences, dismissing concepts like God or divine entities as non-existent [Plantinga, 1996: 369]. This perspective challenges theism, which includes beliefs in miracles, divine revelation, and God’s creation. In "Where the Conflict Really Lies?", Plantinga argues that theism and scientific belief can coexist. His epistemology suggests that a theistic view of the relationship between God, the natural world, and human beings makes our perceptions and cognitive capacities reliable. Therefore, the scientific theories we develop can also be considered trustworthy. Conversely, naturalism, which sees humans as products of unguided Darwinian evolution, undermines the reliability of our cognitive faculties, making it unreasonable to trust any theories, including evolution. Plantinga claims that embracing naturalism while believing in scientific theories is self-defeating [Nagel, 2023: 208-209].
For Plantinga, any account of knowledge must include an explanation of "warrant," a condition true beliefs must meet to be considered knowledge. Our cognitive faculties—perception, memory, rational intuition, and induction—play a role in forming basic beliefs [Plantinga, 2000: 147]. If these faculties operate under "proper functioning," they are reliable and provide warrants for true beliefs. Notably, Plantinga introduces the divine sense, or sensus divinitatis, as a human cognitive faculty that allows for innate awareness of God or divinity [Plantinga, 2000: 148]. When functioning properly, the divine sense can support knowledge-based beliefs about God.
Here is a challenge to consider. Occasionally, we come to realize that our cognitive faculties, which shape our beliefs, can lead us astray. When overwhelming evidence contradicts our memories, we must acknowledge their fallibility. But what should we do when evidence challenges our religious beliefs? Plantinga asserts that we should not simply abandon those beliefs. Instead, he suggests that believers should seek to interpret the sacred text related to them. Augustine employed this approach when discussing creation, and it also served as inspiration for Plantinga [Nagel, 2023: 213].
Theism in Plantinga's Epistemology
In Plantinga's epistemology, the theistic approach provides a clear explanation for the possibility of science. The theist confidently claims that the alignment between the natural world and our understanding reflects God's intention, whereas the naturalist finds it challenging to articulate this connection. Consequently, naturalism and scientism are fundamentally different, and the perceived tension between theism and scientism is not merely superficial; in reality, a profound harmony exists between them [Nagel, 2023: 213].
Plantinga's argument can be articulated as follows [Plantinga, 2011: 344-345]:
1. The reliability of our cognitive faculties is questionable, as naturalism and evolution suggest.
2. If someone subscribes to naturalism and evolution, the low probability of their cognitive faculties being reliable indicates they must possess counter-evidence regarding this reliability.
3. A single objection to the reliability of their cognitive faculties would also undermine all beliefs formed by those faculties, including their belief in naturalism and evolution.
4. Therefore, a belief in naturalism and evolution ultimately leads to contradicting evidence, making it unreasonable to accept these views.
According to Plantinga's argument, the theistic view of science is preferable to the atheistic naturalistic view, which is not even defensible.
Islamic Philosophy of Religion
The relationship between religious and scientific teachings has been discussed in Islamic philosophy and theology. We can identify three main positions on this issue. The first position is quite extreme, asserting that reason alone is sufficient and that there is no need for the Muslim holy book, the Quran [Stroumsa, 1999: 107]. This view is associated with Abu Bakr al-Razi [McGinnis, 2023]. The second position starkly contrasts al-Razi's perspective, claiming that reason and scientific reasoning have no connection to religious teachings. Proponents of this view argue that only a religious authority, specifically a prophet, is needed to impart knowledge about God. This stance not only dismisses the role of reason but also denies the possibility of interpreting the sacred text [McGinnis, 2023].
The third perspective, held by various Muslim philosophers and theologians, suggests that while reason and scientific reasoning help form religious beliefs, sacred texts remain essential for understanding religion. Philosophers like Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Ibn Tufail, and Averroes advocate that reason and religious tradition coexist equally in religious epistemology [McGinnis, 2023]. Conflicts arise not between religion and reason but between reason and religious texts [Hoseini Shahroodi & Mashhadi, 2011: 2]. This tension can be resolved through hermeneutical interpretation of the sacred texts, which will be discussed in the next section.
The origin of this idea can be traced back to al-Farabi, who believed that true religious beliefs are symbolic expressions of philosophical truths that can be validated by science and philosophy. Therefore, when conflicts arise between philosophical theories and religious teachings, it is essential to recognize that the meaning of religious texts may not be found in their literal expressions [Farabi, 1985: 276–285].
Abu Hamid al-Ghazali further emphasizes this idea. He argues that since the Qur’an cannot contain contradictions, any statements that appear contradictory should be reinterpreted. Al-Ghazali asserts that any religious claim that "reason declares to be impossible" must be understood metaphorically.
Al-Ghazali and Hermeneutics
There is a connection between Plantinga's Augustinian method and Ghazali's approach to interpreting sacred texts. In Ghazali's view, the principle of non-contradiction, a rational rule, leads us to find a deeper understanding of the Quranic text. His criterion for interpreting God's word is that we can demonstrate, through rational argument, that the meaning inferred from the apparent text of the Quran can sometimes lead us to accept contradictions [Al-Ghazali, 2002: 85]. Interpretation, therefore, involves moving from the superficial meaning to a deeper figurative understanding based on rational evidence [Al-Ghazali, 1904: 387]. This perspective includes a hierarchical ontology structured as follows [Al-Ghazali, 2002: 79-81]:
- Essential Existence: This refers to the truths of the external world that serve as the source of our perception.
- Sensory Existence: This is the representation of essential existence as experienced through our senses, particularly vision and mental faculties. It requires the simultaneous presence of both the perceiver and the object being perceived.
- Imaginary Existence: This concept refers to a high level of sensory representation that does not depend on the simultaneous presence of the subject and object.
- Intellectual Existence: This involves understanding the meaning of something through the intellect, which is universal and formless.
- Analogous Existence: This describes the relationship between two distinct things connected through a shared similarity.
This metaphysical assumption, along with two epistemological rules, shapes Al-Ghazali's hermeneutic theory [Al-Ghazali, 2002: 84-85]:
1. The Rule of Abstraction: Words' meanings, depending on their existential level, can be expanded to higher levels by interpreting them more profoundly. This means that a word's interpretation can extend its partial meanings to broader ones—moving from our sensory understanding to our imaginative interpretation and then from our imaginative understanding to the rational and general meanings of the same word.
2. The Rule of Gradualness: The ontological hierarchy is crucial in interpreting words. If we can interpret a word in its imaginary meaning, we should not extend it to its rational meaning.
Al-Ghazali's theory includes two complementary aspects. First, he asserts that the Muqatta’at should not be subject to interpretation. Second, he emphasizes that the definitive conclusions of reason are crucial for understanding when interpretation is necessary [Al-Ghazali, 1993: 126]. Ultimately, Al-Ghazali's theory highlights the significant role of reason and scientific reasoning. He views these elements as essential for identifying Quranic verses that need interpretation and reconciling the realms of religion and reason.
Conclusion
The article highlights two philosophers, Plantinga and Imam Muhammad al-Ghazali, who agree on the compatibility of science (reason) and religious beliefs despite their differing perspectives. Plantinga's theory suggests that the cognitive faculties of theists are reliable, while those of atheists (naturalists) may lead to self-defeating reasoning. He contends that religious beliefs can constitute knowledge and offers interpretations of sacred texts to resolve contradictions with scientific evidence. Al-Ghazali asserts that science and rationality can coexist with religion. He argues that the perceived conflict between reason and sacred texts is superficial and that a proper interpretation of sacred texts can clarify their true meaning, alleviating misunderstandings.
1. The Rule of Abstraction: Words' meanings, depending on their existential level, can be expanded to higher levels by interpreting them more profoundly. This means that a word's interpretation can extend its partial meanings to broader ones—moving from our sensory understanding to our imaginative interpretation and then from our imaginative understanding to the rational and general meanings of the same word.
2. The Rule of Gradualness: The ontological hierarchy is crucial in interpreting words. If we can interpret a word in its imaginary meaning, we should not extend it to its rational meaning.
Al-Ghazali's theory includes two complementary aspects. First, he asserts that the Muqatta’at should not be subject to interpretation. Second, he emphasizes that the definitive conclusions of reason are crucial for understanding when interpretation is necessary [Al-Ghazali, 1993: 126]. Ultimately, Al-Ghazali's theory highlights the significant role of reason and scientific reasoning. He views these elements as essential for identifying Quranic verses that need interpretation and reconciling the realms of religion and reason.
Conclusion
The article highlights two philosophers, Plantinga and Imam Muhammad al-Ghazali, who agree on the compatibility of science (reason) and religious beliefs despite their differing perspectives. Plantinga's theory suggests that the cognitive faculties of theists are reliable, while those of atheists (naturalists) may lead to self-defeating reasoning. He contends that religious beliefs can constitute knowledge and offers interpretations of sacred texts to resolve contradictions with scientific evidence. Al-Ghazali asserts that science and rationality can coexist with religion. He argues that the perceived conflict between reason and sacred texts is superficial and that a proper interpretation of sacred texts can clarify their true meaning, alleviating misunderstandings.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Philosophy of Religion (Modern)
Received: 2025/01/28 | Accepted: 2025/03/8 | Published: 2025/03/15
Received: 2025/01/28 | Accepted: 2025/03/8 | Published: 2025/03/15
References
1. Al-Ghazali AH (1904). AL-MUSTASFÂ MIN 'ILM AL-USÛL. Boulaq: AL-MATBA'A AL-AMÎRIYYA. [Arabic] [Link]
2. Al-Ghazali AH (1993). QANUN AL-TA'WIL. Beirut: DAR AL-KOTOB AL-ILMIYAH. [Arabic] [Link]
3. Al-Ghazali AH (2002). FAYSAL AL-TAFRIQA BAYNA L-ISLÂM WA-L-ZANDAQA. Cairo: DÂR IHYÂ AL-KOTOB AL-'ARABÎYYA. [Arabic] [Link]
4. Farabi AN (1985). Al-Farabi on the perfect state (MABĀDIʼ ĀRĀʼ AHL AL-MADĪNAT AL-FĀḌILAH). Walzer R, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Link]
5. Helm P (1998). John Calvin, the sensus divinitatis, and the noetic effects of sin. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 43(2):87-107. [Link]
6. Hoseini Shahroodi SM, Mashhadi T (2011). Rational interpretation of religion from the perspective of Tabatabai and Ghazali. Comparative Theology. 2(6):1-18. [Persian] [Link]
7. McGinnis J, Acar R (2023). Arabic and Islamic philosophy of religion. Zalta EN, Nodelman U, editors. Stanford: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Link]
8. Nagel T (2023). Analytic philosophy and human life. New York: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/oso/9780197681671.001.0001]
9. Plantinga A (1993). Warrant and proper function. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/0195078640.001.0001]
10. Plantinga A (1996). Science: Augustinian or Duhemian?. Faith and Philosophy. 13(3):368-394. [Link] [DOI:10.5840/faithphil19961335]
11. Plantinga A (2000). Warranted Christian belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/0195131932.001.0001]
12. Plantinga A (2011). Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. New York: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199812097.001.0001]
13. Stroumsa S (1999). Freethinkers of medieval Islam: Ibn al-Rawāndī, Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, and their impact on Islamic thought. Leiden: Brill. [Link] [DOI:10.1163/9789004452848]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |