A short while back I called attention to an upcoming symposium , run by the Deen Institute, on Islamic attitudes toward evolution and creationism, which had to be cancelled because of Muslim student opposition to the very topic of evolution.

Well, according to a report in the “Science’ section of the Guardian by correspondent Yasmin Khan, that symposium has now taken place. As expected, it was deeply polarized, with advocates of evolution balanced by wackos from Harun Yahya, the pseudonym of Adnan Oktar, a nasty piece of creationist work from Turkey.  Unfortunately, the reporter seems out of her depth, as we’ll see.

On the pro-evolution side there were some brave individuals who spoke out for the truth, even if they tried hard to accommodate it with Islam:

. . . Professor Ehab Abouheif, an evolutionary biologist at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. “Muslims must revolutionise their perspective on evolution if they are to move forward in the 21st century,” said Abouheif, who considers himself to be both a scientist and a sincere believer. He is a veteran of debates like this. “Biological evolution is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming and indisputable,” he said.

Fatima Jackson, a biological anthropologist at the University of Maryland, offered a compelling alternative narrative. Nothing in biology would make sense outside the evolution paradigm, which she defined as a “basic organising tool”. She reconciled her faith with science by holding to the belief that the singularity of life is a manifestation of the unity of God. In her view, exploring natural phenomena helps to bring us closer to God. “Evolution doesn’t replace faith, it complements it.”

You may remember Usama Hasan, an imam who spoke out in favor of evolution at a mosque, received death threats, and then recanted a bit. This time, though, he was pro-evolution, though saying (as Muslim accommodationists are wont to do) that it was all anticipated in the Qur’an:

Dr Usama Hasan, a senior researcher in Islamic studies at the Quilliam Foundation and a part-time imam, said Yahya’s creationist arguments were easily discredited (though he later confessed to previously teaching Yahya’s fallacy, before deeper research into the subject). His current stance has provoked outrage and even death threats.

Hasan courageously presented evolution as a theory initially recorded by Muslim thinkers. For instance, he said, William Draper refers to the “Mohammedan theory of the evolution of man from lower forms, or his gradual development to his present condition in the long lapse of time.”

On the anti-evolution side:

Beamed into Logan Hall via satellite was Dr Oktar Babuna, a spokesperson for Harun Yahya – founder of the controversial Turkish creationist movement that has often been accused of obscuring clear scientific thinking.

Babuna’s impenetrable polemic was relentless. “Evolution is not a scientific theory,” he said, “as it has yet to be verified by scientific evidence. In fact, evolution has already been falsified.”

He maintains that no evolutionary mechanism has been found. His logic is that if successive minor changes had accumulated into a big change during speciation, transitional forms would outnumber the original and transformed species in the fossil record. But, according to palaeontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, the record showed otherwise.

Much to the amusement of the audience, Babuna repeatedly offered a £5m cash prize to anyone who can find a transitional fossil.

Of course the transitional fossil business is a mug’s game. I could show him the skeletons of the proto-whale Basilosaurus, a feathered theropod dinosaur, or a mammal-like reptile with two jaw joints, and he’d find a reason why it wasn’t “transitional.” Those prizes (and I’d dearly love five million pounds) should be adjudicated by a committee of educated laypeople with no religious commitment.

Someone who waffled:

But [Hasan’s claims that the Qur’an anticipated Darwin] were vehemently refuted by Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, Islamic instructor for the Al-Maghrib Institute, who said the descriptions were meant in a different context and that these scholars were not experts in either theology or biology.

Hassan argued that his views on evolution were firmly within the limits of Islamic thought and that difference of opinion was permissible. Qadhi disagreed: “It is sacrilegious to have two different Islamic opinions on this issue.” [See more waffling from Qadhi below.]

Given what seems to have been a preponderance of pro-evolutionists (albeit accommodationist ones) among the speakers, the audience, and the reporter, seemed to be resistant to the Darwinian message:

Much to the amusement of the audience, Babuna repeatedly offered a £5m cash prize to anyone who can find a transitional fossil.

Abouheif’s swift rebuttal [that evolution isn’t always perfectly gradual] fell on deaf ears.

. . . Qadhi pointed out that Muslims were not historically anti-science in the way Christianity had been. But he went on: “We need to put science in its proper place”. In his view, “science is the study of understanding Allah’s creation”.

Hassan responded by suggesting that religious scholars who do not understand the sciences should not interfere. “It is not the job of theologians to dictate what scientists can and cannot do. Isn’t your attitude holding back the Muslim ummah?”

Qadhi’s reply provoked rapturous applause from the audience. “The Qur’an compels us to believe in the super rational; that which is beyond our comprehension.”

Oy gewalt—the “super rational” is, by definition, beyond our comprehension! That reminds me of John Haught’s oxymoronic quote from Deeper than Darwin:

“It is essential to religious experience, after all, that ultimate reality be beyond our grasp. If we could grasp it, it would not be ultimate.”

I’m heartened that some Muslims have stood up for evolution; after all, you can get death threats for that, as did Hasan.  I’m a bit disappointed, though, that some do what theistic Christian evolutionists do: draw the line at humans:

[Qadhi]: It was fine for Muslims to believe there were dinosaurs, speciation among hominids and even a common ancestor for all animals on Earth – except for one exception – mankind. “We are an honoured species distinctive from animals in terms of meta-cognition, language, morals, creativity and religion.”

He addressed the ultimate sticking point for the majority of Muslims: “God created Adam to fit into the grand scheme of things. Adam and Eve did not have parents – they did not evolve. Any other position is scripturally indefensible.”

What about scientifically defensible? We already know that modern humanity did not descend from just two individuals who mated with each other: population genetics tells us that. But Qadhi’s position is similar to that of the Catholic Church, which is that purely naturalistic evolution is okay for every creature save Homo sapiens, during whose evolution God miraculously inserted a soul. Excepting humans from naturalistic evolution pretty much destroys the whole enterprise, for, after all, it preserves the religious superstition that we’re special objects of God’s creation, and therefore cannot be understood by neo-Darwinian processes.  It keeps people believing in the unsupported idea, promoted by people like NIH director Francis Collins, that human morality and altruism must have been a gift of God, not a product of evolution and human reason.

The worst part is that reporter Yasmin Khan punts when giving her own opinion:

The debate stimulated intense discussion and I found myself agreeing with different strands from different speakers, but to varying degrees. I am convinced that the scientific rationality of Abouheif and Jackson outweighs the droll scepticism of Babuna. But I was torn between the theological cerebral flexibility of Hasan and the unwavering categorical rhetoric of Qadhi. [Oy, what a paragraph!]

As the event closed I was left restless and sensed that others felt similarly conflicted. I tried to envisage how to establish a consensus of Muslim opinion on this topic. Where was the call to action? Who would bring the necessary scholars and scientists together to form a legitimate committee?

The debate has lifted the lid on this Pandora’s Box, but the next steps are uncertain. Without more structured engagement with Muslims, the concept of human evolution will continue to be both an intellectual and spiritual minefield.

Given nearly unanimous Muslim opinion on the impossibility of human evolution (something I’ve learned from studying how Muslims reconcile science and faith), and opposition to evolution itself in many quarters, there is no way to establish a Muslim consensus on evolution (which should be that everything evolved according to natural processes) without getting rid of Islam.

I can haz £5,000,000 plz?

h/t: Michael

Hot news: Hasbro is updating its Monopoly tokens, and you can vote some down and others up if you go here.  Here’s your selection for new tokens:

You know what to do. Generations of children to come will be playing with your choice.  Really, do you want them to play with helicopters or diamond rings?

Just look at that cute moggie!

And Butter cat, you can engage, too.

h/t: Graham

Thank God we finally have an unbeliever in the U.S. congress (I’m sure there are others who won’t admit it, for it’s political poison in our country to profess nonbelief). This one professes it: Kyrsten Sinema, a newly elected Congresswoman from Arizona.  She’s not only openly bisexual, but she doesn’t believe in God. The thing is, she’s timorous about admitting it.

Now I’m not a fan of Chris Stedman, who espouses the osculation of the religious rump in the interest of “interfaith action,” but even a blind pig can find an occasional acorn.  And, at CNN, Stedman has called out Sinema (who, to be sure, is courageous in confessing her bisexuality) for refusing to admit her atheism. In a piece at CNN‘s “belief” section called “‘Atheist’ isn’t a dirty word, congresswoman,” Stedman notes some waffling on her part:

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Arizona, was sworn in a few days ago without a Bible, and she is the first member of Congress to openly describe her religious affiliation as “none.” Although 10 other members don’t specify a religious affiliation — up from six members in the previous Congress — Sinema is the only to officially declare “none.”

This has gotten Sinema a fair amount of attention from the media. Many identified her as an atheist during her congressional campaign, and after she won, sources touted her as a nontheist. Even this past weekend, Politico declared in a headline: “Non-believers on rise in Congress.”

But there’s a slight issue: Sinema doesn’t actually appears to be a nonbeliever. In response to news stories identifying her as an atheist, her campaign released this statement shortly after her victory: “(Rep. Sinema) believes the terms non-theist, atheist or non-believer are not befitting of her life’s work or personal character.”

If you live in the U.S., you’ll know why her campaign made that statement. If you’re identified as a nonbeliever in our country, and don’t keep mum about it. you’re political dead meat. In fact, I doubt that Sinema can be elected again (she has a two-year term). Imagine—she wouldn’t be sworn in on a Bible! (As Stedman notes, “According to a Gallup poll released in June, only 58% of Americans would vote for a ‘generally well-qualified’ Muslim candidate, and only 54% would vote for an atheist. (This is the first time that number has been above 50% for an atheist candidate.)  By contrast, 91% would vote for a Jewish candidate, 94% for a Catholic and 80% for a Mormon.”)

Stedman’s response is on the money:

As a nontheist, atheist and nonbeliever (take your pick), I find this statement deeply problematic.

It is perfectly fine, of course, if Sinema isn’t a nontheist, and it is understandable that she would want to clarify misinformation about her personal beliefs. But to say that these terms are “not befitting of her life’s work or personal character” is offensive because it implies there is something unbefitting about the lives and characters of atheists or nonbelievers.

Try substituting a religious group of your choice in place of atheist if you don’t agree: “[Rep. Sinema] believes the term Muslim is not befitting of her life’s work or personal character.” Does that sound right? It shouldn’t.

. . .The 113th Congress is rich with diversity. As an interfaith activist, I am glad to see the religious composition of Congress more closely reflect the diversity of America. As a queer person, I’m glad that LGBT Americans are seeing greater representation in Washington.

But as a proud atheist and humanist, I’m disheartened that the only member of Congress who openly identifies as nonreligious has forcefully distanced herself from atheism in a way that puts down those of us who do not believe in God.

We are Americans of good character, too.

That’s about the most sensible thing that Stedman has ever said. We atheists need to stop thinking that if someone kisses up to the religious, or says something that we don’t like, that henceforth everything that they say is either tainted or wrong. That’s a mistake that one reader made about Pat Condell this morning, and it’s a mistake that people constantly make about Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Just because they take some stands that people find offensive, they’re immediately written off in toto. This is particularly true for Harris, whose entire corpus is dismissed because people don’t like what he said about torture or racial profiling. Don’t forget that even when you disagree with him, he makes you think, and that’s a good thing. And, more important, think of his immense contributions in writing The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation—both seminal documents of New Atheism.

Look, nobody is right all the time, and it’s a serious mistake to dismiss someone because he’s been wrong—or has disagreed with you. What’s important in our cause are ideas, which must be examined one by one with reason and logic, and not the people who expressed them.

/rant.

Oh, and if you consider yourself a “nonbeliever” or an “agnostic,” try telling people you’re an “atheist” next time, just to try that label on. It’s the only way that its connotations—that the bearers have horns and a tail—can be dispelled.

There are two brands of atheists who won’t admit it: religious people who are so liberal that they eviscerate their faith, removing all the dogma and existential claims until it becomes a form of humanism couched in religious language, with God so nebulous that he can’t be described—or even imagined. The other is the true atheist who hides behind labels like “nonbeliever” or “agnostic.” This morning we’ll feature both sorts.

An example of the first type is David Bryant, a retired Anglican vicar who has written an amazing piece at the Guardian, “God is unknowable—stop looking for him and you will find faith.” Bryant is so apophatic that he might as well be an atheist.

Apophatic theology has always puzzled me for two reasons. First, because it attempts to deal with God by asserting what he is not.  (I use “he” by default since one of the things we can’t know is God’s gender, or if God has a gender.) How can one worship something like that? The second problem is related: if you’re going to describe god in terms of what he is not, then why not add that we don’t know whether he exists?  After all, existence is one of the things we can’t know, or don’t know, about a god.  And if an apophatic believer goes one “not” further—as she should—then she becomes an atheist.  I claim that dealing with a god by arguing about what it is not, or by what we can’t know about it, is a self-defeating exercise, because it still accepts that there is some sort of divine being—a claim as unevidenced as that about the nature of said being.

Bryant is one of these religious people a hairsbreadth from nonbelief.  And yet, embracing the ludicrous and intellectually dishonest theology of apophatism, he manages to find advantages in it! This is perfectly in line with Sophisticated Theologians’™ skill at turning empirical necessities into spiritual virtues. In this case, the necessity is explaining the problem of gratuitous evil.

But first Bryant describes his faith:

Faith is not the progressive unearthing of God’s nature but a recognition that he/she is fundamentally unknowable. The signpost points not to growing certainty but towards increasing non-knowing. This is not as outrageous as it seems. An apophatic thread, a belief that the only way to conceive of God is through conceding that he is ineffable, runs throughout Christian history.

It’s science and reason, by the way, that has convinced people like Bryant that “non-knowing” is increasing. Here his “faith” is intellectually honest in one sense: there’s no way to know what God is like. But it’s intellectually dishonest in claiming that there’s a God anyway.  It’s like saying that since we don’t know what Bigfoot is like, or have evidence for it, we’ll worship it anyway and hope for the best.

But here’s the Big Problem that apophatic theology solves for Bryant  it dispenses with theodicy.

This redirectioning of the spiritual path has fruitful offshoots. We no longer have to ask why God orders the world in such an unsatisfactory way, allowing cancer cells and war to proliferate. Nor do we have to bombard him with prayer in order to achieve our desired ends. Such dialogue is only sustainable if you posit a personal being.

As Church Lady would say, “Now isn’t that convenient!”  But that isn’t really pure apophatism, as it pinpoints real characteristics of God: apathy and powerlessness. For if there is a divine being, and it has any recognition of human existence, and any power, then we must conclude that it doesn’t give a rat’s patootie—or does but is impotent It is a positive claim that God can’t, or doesn’t do anything about suffering. Bryant has found a theology that is intellectually dishonest and self-contradictory, but still allows him to avoid thinking about evil.

And what kind of faith is he left with? This:

Is anything left or does this destroy the very fabric of spirituality? What remains is a Quakerlike silence during which we can respond to the numinous, develop our perceptions, hone our morality and enhance our wonder at the staggering complexity of the universe. Instead of ranting at the arbitrariness and high-handed conduct of the God we have invented, it is now possible to rest in a cloud of unknowing which gives us time and space in which to reflect on the fundamental questions of life. Why am I here? How can I best deport myself in this bewildering world?

Now tell me: how does this differ from secular humanism? Only in assuming the question “Why am I here?” has a divine answer. But that’s not worth pondering, either, because apophatic theology stipulates that we can’t answer it.

But Bryant underscores the huge advantages of negative theology:

At first sight this is a distinctly uncomfortable stance. It leaves us rudderless in a sea of uncertainty. All the old props of a father God, prayer as colloquy with a personal deity and faith as a clear-cut assent to a set of credal formulations has been deconstructed and abandoned.

Persist and the rewards are immense. There is an exhilarating sense of newfound freedom. It releases us from the burden of kowtowing to the dictates of a holy book and it relieves us of the intellectual difficulties of accepting the dogmatic assertions of an ecclesiastical hierarchy. We are liberated and can follow our own spiritual path.

Try atheism, Reverend Bryant, and you’ll find real freedom! No need to even think about the numinous!

Bryant’s brand of “faith” not only leaves one rudderless in a sea of uncertainty, but ridiculous in a sea of uncertainty.  And nobody’s going to be convinced by this line of argument except rarefied intellectuals (if that term applies) like Karen Armstrong. Who wants to think that they don’t know anything about God—even whether he’s merciful and loving? There’s a reason why there’s no Church of the Ineffable Savior.

Apophatism is the faith of the intellectual coward. But it has one advantage: if it mandates a “Quakerlike silence,” then religious people will finally stop beleaguering us with their insupportable beliefs.

h/t: James