The Scientific Deception Of The New Atheists by Mohammad Hijab

Considering all these nuances it is difficult to affirm generalisability of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) just as it is difficult to legitimise the New Atheist treatment conception of conflict. On these points, it is vital that Christian and Muslim faith leaders are aware of New Atheism’s arguments, thereby allowing them to counter them through inter-disciplinary research that includes, but is not limited to, understanding the history of science. Consequently, it may be useful to initially assess some of the New Atheists’ overarching claims. In a striking oversimplification of history Grayling writes:

Whatever else one might think about the chequered history of the relation between science and religion, at least one thing is clear: that they do indeed compete for truth about the origin of the universe, the nature of human beings and whether the universe manifests evidence of intelligent design (Grayling, 2014, p.108).

Most scientific historians consider this conflict model untenable. Using various examples, Ahmed Dallal makes this case for Islam showcasing how scholars like Al-Biruni, Ibn Taymiyyah and Al-Ghazali all had positive approaches to scientific enterprise (Dallal, 2010, p.116). Importantly, he highlights the writings of al Iji, who states, ‘All (religious) sciences draw from kalām, whereas it draws from none.’ (Dallal, 2010, p.118). Essentially, the entire Kalam discipline could not start with an assumption of God since it mostly concerned proving His existence. Despite the critique of certain aspects of Kalam, it still represented a staple part of Muslim culture and tradition throughout the centuries. Dallal argues that no single reason dictates scientific decline in the Muslim world, rather, it is attributed to a variety of civilizational factors including military confrontations with Europe at a time of rapid European colonial expansion (Dallal, 2010, p.152-6). Syed Nomanul Haq notes a range of jurisprudential considerations, including calculating prayer times, as an incentive for Muslim astronomy from the years 800-1300 (Haq, 2009, p.35).

Regarding the Catholic church’s (or Christianity’s) scientific and religious history, the ‘conflict theory’ is also no longer acceptable as an all-purpose explanation. Mentioning the case of Galileo, John Hedley Brooke claims:

The combination of the Galileo story with evidence for a Protestant stimulus to science can easily give the impression that the Catholic Church was generally hostile to scientific innovation. This impression would be false on at least three counts. First, the Church had played a crucial role in the patronage of the sciences… Second, the Jesuit order within the Church contained outstanding astronomers, mathematicians, and physicists who were also committed to teaching the sciences in their educational programs. Third, some of the greatest and most influential scientists of the seventeenth century were Catholics. Galileo, Mersenne, Gassendi, and Descartes all played prominent roles in the mechanization of nature (Brooke, 2010, p.12).

The impact of Protestantism (and Puritanism in particular) has been one of significant sociological study. One study by Robert Merton was highly dependent on data from the Dictionary of National Biography, and examined information from 29,120 biographies of notable figures in the seventeenth century (among other important data sets) concluding that Puritanism (which, to Merton, encouraged a kind of theological utilitarianism) provided an impetus for scientific discovery.

Accordingly, Merton states:

In this direct fashion, religion sanctioned science raising the social estimation of those who pursued scientific investigation, with the associated intensification and spread of interest in such pursuits (Merton, 2002, p.431).

Merton distinguishes the Protestant attitude from the Catholic one by claiming:

This comparison of the Puritan academies in England and Protestant educational developments on the Continent is well warranted. The Protestant academies in France devoted much more attention to scientific and utilitarian subjects than did the Catholic institutions (Merton, 2002, p.478-9).

Merton discusses other contributory factors to the increased interest in science, including military factors; especially new interest in ballistic weaponry (Merton, 2002, p.543).

Consequently, one realises the similarity between the Merton thesis and Max Weber’s theory in the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (2013). In reality, many of the arguments used against Weber’s thesis may also be used against Merton’s which may include either Merton or Weber’s inability to account for other nations (most notably Japan) which underwent both capitalism and technological advancement without Protestantism as a catalyst. One may provide an alternative explanation to Protestantism through non-religious utilitarianism (perhaps a Lockian or Hobbesian formulation), as was contemplated by Merton (Merton, 2002, p.589). Overall, it is difficult to pin-point Protestantism or Puritanism as a decisive factor in scientific progress inasmuch as it would be difficult to blame it (or Catholicism) for generally inhibiting science. New Atheists often invoke Darwin as the turning point. There is no evidence, however, that Darwin apostatised from Christianity because of his theory of natural selection. On this point, James Moore claims:

His own testimony is seldom heeded: “I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” Darwin turned forty in 1849, long after developing his theory of evolution by natural selection (Moore, 2010, p.143) and Brooke agrees that:

The main reasons Darwin gave for his unbelief derived not from the role he gave natural causes in explaining the origin of species. Like other Victorian thinkers, Darwin reacted strongly against evangelical Christian preaching on heaven and hell (Brooke, 2010, p.228).

Origin of Species was published in 1859 during the post-Tanzimaat Ottoman period when most of the Muslim world was colonised. Accordingly, it is difficult to assess a Muslim state response to Darwinism. Nevertheless, it is clear that exegetical conflict did (and continues to)

feature at least on the aspect of human evolution, similar to the Christian world. Therefore, models of conflict between all of ‘science’ and all of ‘religion’ (considering only two religions are mentioned) are simply ahistorical.