Perhaps distinction should be drawn between two kinds of arguments presented by New Atheists. We have discussed the New Atheist treatment of the ‘God hypothesis’ as disproved and ‘untenable’ in the face of new Darwinian explanations. Contrastingly, we have also witnessed philosophical rejection of this postulation by those who rightly differentiate between the evolution mechanism and the supposed agency of a deity who is guiding it.

Moreover, we also noted the subtle but important difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. Overall this begs the question; can these findings be generalised to religion in general or has religion itself been disproven in light of this new scientific evidence?

Christopher Hitchens writes:

Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important. Where once it used to be able, by its total command of a worldview, to prevent the emergence of rivals, it can now only impede and retard—or try to turn back—the measurable advances that we have made (Hitchens, 2019, p.282).

On this point, Dawkins claims ‘as a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.284). Grayling furthers this from ‘fundamentalist’ religion to all religion by suggesting ‘…Darwinism is not compatible with religion; the evidences of biological science are evidences against the presence of supernatural agency in the universe’ (Grayling, 2014, p.113). Grayling also states that intelligent design is ‘creationism in disguise’ (Grayling, 2014, p.109). Clearly, two separate arguments are defined here. Firstly, an argument against the ‘God hypothesis’, as previously discussed. The second argument concerns religion. To what extent, though, has religious and scientific discourse been entangled according to individuals who take such discourses seriously? This of course is a big question to which there is no simple answer. In what follows I will outline the main approaches that both Muslim and Christian scholars have taken when answering these questions.

In both Christian and Muslim traditions, religious scriptures have been interpreted in a variety of ways. While discussing ancient Jewish philosophy, David Shatz differentiates between modest and bold concordism. The former allows scriptural reconciliation with science, whereas, the latter assumes ‘positive teaching’ of science in a scripture. Though one cannot generalise approaches to Biblical exegesis, three approaches to the Bible stand out. The first is a modest concordist allegorising approach which emphasises the allegorical nature of the Genesis account. Since the verses are allegorical, it may be argued, theology cannot expand on evolution or Big Bang cosmology. Though this approach has exegetical precedent from the patristic period (most notably from the Alexandrian school), it is often met with challenges. Such challenges, which are beyond the scope of this paper, relate to deciding which verses may or may not be allegorised.

The second approach is the literalist non-concordist approach which, when applied to the Bible, does not need to produce a young-age creationist conception as even some patristic Church Fathers like Augustine (who is infrequent in his allegorisation) may not have considered the days in the Genesis account to be literal (Brooke, 2012, p.8). Nevertheless, a literal approach to Genesis has its own set of ‘scientific’ and historical challenges including interpretations, which have patristic and medieval precedent, and which indicate the universe’s age as six thousand years old. This approach is not non-concordist from its own perspective, as it defines ‘science’ and its processes in ways that differ from classical approaches of philosophy of science. Ken Ham, a Young Age Creationist, divides science into ‘observational’ and ‘historical’ types, the latter of which is highly subject to human interpretation, and where conflict exists, the plain reading of the text must take precedence (Ham, 2013, p.45-55). Proponents of this view refer to a genealogical approach to Genesis 5

which adds up the years from one generation to another, thereby concluding the universe is approximately six thousand years old; see Floyd Nolen Jones’s The Chronology of the Old Testament. One can categorise this perspective as rejectionist, on account of its rejecting popularly accepted science.

A third approach, popularised recently by the likes of Dr. Hugh Ross, is a ‘bold concordist’ literalist approach which aims to establish how scientific phenomenon, like the Big Bang, is taught in scripture. Accordingly, such an approach is essentially a literalist Old Age creationist approach but one which crucially stops at the point of human evolution (Ross et al., 2001, p.11).

Much like scholars in the patristic period, like Origen and Augustine mentioned above, early Islamic scholars were also occasionally noticeably concordist, both modestly and boldly.

Nevertheless, representatives of major creedal schools of thought, like Ibn Taymiyyah (for the Hanbalis) and AlGhazali (for the Asharis), would interpret verses which reference the physical world in a literal manner (Qadhi and Khan, 2018). The falasifa or ‘the philosophers’ most prominently represented by Ibn Sina (like Origen of Alexandria – though perhaps less flagrantly) would prefer allegorising verses which appeared to not correspond with the cosmologies of the day as he did with the theory of ten celestial spheres (Qadhi and Khan, 2018).

Though Ibn Sina and the falasifa’s work has survived to the modern day, their exegetical preferences have become practically disregarded particularly after the scathing attacks of both Al-Ghazali in his famous work The Incoherence of the Philosophers and Ibn Taymiyyah following A Response to the Greek Logicians. In such works, Ibn Sina was ex-communicated from Islam and though Ibn Rushd (Averroes) refuted aspects of this in his The Incoherence of the Incoherence, the Sunni-Muslim world appeared to have already decided on the matter.

The net result of this historical development was that allegorising historical narratives or verses of naturalistic significance were limited to creedal aspects of referencing Allah’s ‘throne’ (Arsh) and his names and attributes which is notably controversial among Ashari’s, Hanbalis, Maturidis, Mutazili’s, Shia Twelvers and other less well known schools. Quranic exegetes from virtually all of these creedal schools accept the literal correspondence of naturalistic verses with the ‘real world’. Perhaps most notably including exegetes of schools such as Fakhr al Deen al Razi (an Ashari), Ibn Kathir (creedal Hanbali), Al-Zamakhshari (A Mutazli) and Abu Jafar al Tusi (A Shia). Though such exegetes discussed the verses’ symbolic value, virtually none of them achieved what Ibn Sina or Origen were willing to do; namely reduce the verses to a form of aetiology, stripping it of its literal value.

With the creedal exclusion of the falasifa’s allegorical exegesis, popular Islamic exegetical approaches to naturalistic verses can be easily divided into three types: bold concordism, modest concordism and modern science rejection. As with Christian scholarship and apologetics, these categories are not fixed as a scholar or apologist may be rejectionist in one context and not in another.

Dr. Zakir Naik is the most popular representative of the Bold concordist literalist approach in the English-speaking world. In a 2017 study, 1006 online videos were identified with the terms ‘Islam’ and ‘science’ together on YouTube, and the speaker with the highest output was Zakir Naik (Gardner et al., 2018, p.358). Like Dr. Hugh Ross, Naik indicates that the Quran teaches that the Big Bang occurred, and also like Ross, Naik doesn’t accept human evolution because of its contradiction with the plain reading of the text (Gardner et al., 2018, p.385). Naik’s scientific arguments are almost identical to those of Dr. Maurice Bucaille who wrote a polemic book titled The Bible, Quran and Science effectively arguing that the Bible is incongruent to science on matters related to cosmology, geology and Noah’s flood whereas the Quran is in line with such matters (Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, p.96-143; Bucaille and Fahim, 1977, 152-157). This novel evangelising/apologetic Islamic approach (termed the Ijaaz Ilmi approach in Arabic) even prompted Salafist clergy members in Saudi Arabia to start a committee on the Scientific Miracles of the Quran and Sunnah (Dallal, 2010, p.171).

However, this approach was criticised for employing eisegesis and pseudo-science, especially regarding issues relating to Darwinism and evolution (Gardner et al., 2018, p.385).

Criticising this approach, Ahmed Dallal states:

When Muslims were the main producers of science in the world, they did not advocate wedding science and religion. Now, ironically, when Muslim participation in the production of the universal culture of science is dwindling, they call for bringing the two together (Dallal, 2010, p.170).

The second rejectionist approach does not oppose all scientific phenomena, only those deemed contrary to exegetical precedent or clear text. This is best exemplified by the theory of human evolution which is considered incompatible with literal Quranic meanings (Qadhi and Khan, 2018). Unfortunately, much of what has been missing from the discourse (from New Atheists and theologians who attempt to counter them) is a meaningful engagement with scientific philosophy. For example, theoretically, and when differentiating between methodological and metaphysical naturalisms, it may be suggested that Muslims and Christians who adopt views which may contradict human evolution (or the entire Darwinian enterprise) adopt an instrumental view rather than a realist view. Since instrumentalism does not necessitate believing the literal truth of scientific theory, Muslims and Christians can accept the validity of the Darwinian model (even allowing advances in it within their spaces)

without needing to believe in the evolution of homo-sapiens (for example) from other hominids.

Accordingly, Darwinian evolution can act as a useful heuristic, like a London Underground map; though highly useful is not properly to scale. Consequently, inhibitions to scientific progress can be mitigated. Two caveats must be made here. Firstly, if this approach is adopted, claims (made by Ross and Naik for example) that the Big Bang theory is explicitly taught by the Quran or Bible must be softened at least to a modest concordist position.

Secondly, it may be difficult to argue (on instrumental grounds) that the age of the universe being fourteen billion years is a ‘model’, as it is a historical claim rather than a model.