NASA Reaching Out to Muslims? AWESOME.
By Shaun Kenney | Thursday, July 8th, 2010 | Catch-AllCause and effect.
About a month ago, I read with great interest a fantastic little book called The Closing of the Muslim Mind, which goes into great detail about why the Islamic caliphates went from being the foremost intellectual center of the Middle Ages to scientific backwater.
For instance, many people are not aware that Islamic textbooks on science often postfix many of their scientific posits with “God willing” in order to avoid any implication of heresy. A fascinating concept, especially when you draw contrasts to Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensberg address back in 2006. While most people remember the speech for the historical depictions of Ottoman conquerers (and the riots that ensued afterwards), the Pope had much to say about the relationship between faith and reason:
“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”
…
John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the logos”. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos. Logos means both reason and word – a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.
…
From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God’s nature.
…
God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason.
…
The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
So maybe that was a bit too much to quote all at once. If you haven’t read the Regensberg address in full and have even a remote interest in the Global War on Terrorism (and can stomach the heavy intellectual lifting), then print this out and read it paragraph by paragraph. It’s worth your time.
Benedict XVI was reflecting on two key aspects of Christian-Muslim relations: (1) that for Christians, we not only inherit Greek philosophy, but that our faith is rooted in reason and our reason rooted in faith, and (2) that this is a stark contrast to the Muslim belief that faith trumps reason, and a theological discussion that must be developed.
You’d be surprised to learn that it wasn’t always this way. In fact, during the Middle Ages it was almost precisely the opposite — a Catholic Church locked in mysticism, medieval politics, or outright dying (well before the restoration spearheaded by St. Francis and St. Dominc in the 12th century) contrasted against a Muslim caliphate that embraced reason.
So what changed? Islam, like Christianity, has its own tectonic rifts, and during the 11th century it would be Islam’s turn to look for purification. In short, they had their own “reformation” — their own version of Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and above all the sovereign will of Allah.
By the 12th century, Muslim philosophers in Cordoba would be the last refuge of reason as philosophic inquiry itself would be banned, and the books of the great Muslim thinkers burned. Why this sudden change in Islam? Much of it centered around the displacement of reason in favor of faith — faith in the Koran, faith in the um’ma, and the idea that Allah alone governs every microscopic aspect of natural events.
For instance, imagine an arrow aimed at the heart of a man. Islam would argue that the tension of the bow is entirely the will of Allah, the loosing of the arrow is also the will of Allah. The travelling along a determined path is the will of Allah. That the arrow pierces the skin of the target is also the will of Allah. That it kills the target is also the will of Allah. That the individual loosing the arrow is not responsible for his actions, but submitted to the will of Allah. That there was no injustice in the act, but for the will of Allah.
Get the problem yet?
There no justice, culpability, or responsibility for any of these actions. Worse still from the mindset of the philosopher or the Christian West, there is no cause or effect. Each moment, each variable, was the will of Allah alone.
Now apply this mode of thought to the scientific method.
…and you get your “AHA!” moment as to why President Obama wants to use NASA as an outreach tool to the Muslim world. In essence, if you’re working with the physics of landing a Martian rover, at some point you’re going to have to challenge — and perhaps recapture — an aspect of your faith.
This is obviously an oversimplification, so before any Muslim readers of Bearing Drift jump on me for it, I undoubtedly realize that reason isn’t exactly extinct in the Muslim world. Likewise, I also understand the implications of using NASA as a tool for proselytization. Still, to create missionaries for reason isn’t necessarily a bad idea, especially when put in the context of stoking a long-term (and long haul) process of restoring reason to her rightful place alongside faith.
Discuss.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
Comments
18 Responses to "NASA Reaching Out to Muslims? AWESOME."
You forgot Sola Gratia.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Shaun Kenney. Shaun Kenney said: RT @bearingdrift NASA Reaching Out to Muslims? AWESOME http://bit.ly/aFm3ah [...]
Grace has entirely two different meanings between Islam and Christianity… but the point is granted. Still, it’s to be noted that Islam did indeed have a “reformation” of sorts.
It’s just that it went horribly, horribly wrong.
That explains Sunni Islam, but what about Shia Islam?
The Shia and Wahabbists share the same view, and in fact hold more radical notions about the place of reason. Sunnis and Sufis are the “moderates” who are more easily persuaded because their traditions aren’t as resistant to interpretation.
The real kicker is “development of doctrine” — Sunnis resistantly are admitting this possibility for more nuanced interpretations of the Koran, while Shias and Wahabbists radically oppose the idea.
Obama’s new NASA Czar says we will land on the Sun – shocking deets are at:
http://spnheadlines.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-czar-ali-baba-says-nasa-will-land.html
Peace!
I used to work with a Saudi national who came to the US as a Wahhabist but chose to become a US citizen, assimilate and teach at ODU. Wahhabism is an austerre 200 year old time bomb that insists the literal translation of the Koran is the only one. Aside from that, it is the dominant strain of Islam practiced by our energy ally (tongue in cheek) Saudi Arabia. There is Wahhabism and then there is strict Wahhabism and the latter can only believe that others who do not conform to their interpretation of islam are their enemies.
The irony is that Hard Core Wahhabism started growing rapidly in the USA 4 decades ago when Saudi charities based in Islamabad began heavily funding Mosque and school construction in Culver City, Ca. and began exporting their orthodox culture that historically has not been shared by a majority of Muslims especially outside of the Saudi Kiingdom.
The Kingdom of Saud’s domestic religious curriculum ironically teaches that people are either the chosen ones, the winners if you will “Salafis aka Wahhabis”, who will only go to heaven. The rest are Christians, Jews, Muslims and other religions who defile “Prophet Mohammed” and are to be hated, persecuted and killed violently. Yeah we have issues with some islamists but many more muslims, not to be confused with islamists, are victims of Wahhabist islamic scorn.
Moderate Muslims are everywhere on campuses all over the US and many good engineers are Muslims. I believe that moderate muslims are critical to breaking the grip of radicals and until we have a better relationship with moderates and reformists we will continue to battle the Taliban. This is one vital reason why we are in Afghanistan for better or worse, so we dont have to fight on our own turf in the future.
Great post. This is the stuff that I really love Bearing Drift for.
“Worse still from the mindset of the philosopher” – I don’t think the qualitative worse applies. Determinism, that everything is a causal chain, can easily fit the will of God model. God can just be the first cause (or mover if you like).
This doesn’t seem incompatible with science either. There are scientists who are also determinist. They may not accept that a God is at the root of all this causality, but seems like two sides of the same coin.
Tex, kinda makes you wonder, huh?
Is it, “I think, therefore I am”?
Or is it, “I am predetermined, therefore I am not”?
Shaun-
Thanks for the great post! I had Robert Reilly, the author of “The Closing of the Muslim Mind-How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis” on my radio show (The Andy Baan Show, Noon to 2pm on Saturdays on Freedom 1650).
One more point about the reliance of Allah’s will vice cause and effect: Who gets to decide what Allah’s will is? If I were a Muslim and have a question about it, I go to an Imam to learn the answer, by getting a “fatwah”. Reilly talked about a “1-900+” line in Egypt for “Dial a Fatwah”. And what happens when two fatwahs conflict? Violence is the only way to know who really had Allah’s will–because whoever the winner is must have been in the right. So force is really the arbiter of disputes.
Which leads to one more impact on the loss of reason in favor of leaving it all to Allah’s will. It is what the Pope was pointing out in your quote of him: “Not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature” except that without recognizing the ability to reason, the ability to reason away from violence doesn’t exist. So violence is the state of affairs we see in that culture — where the strongest tribe’s rules control. And therefore why killing thousands of our people on 9/11 is seen as OK.
Thanks again!
Andy Baan
The Afghan War may be the first one we lose primarily because our civilian leadership did not understand the effect of its public words on our government, our allies and our enemy
The Anatomy of Defeat
The Afghan War may be the first one we lose primarily because our civilian leadership did not understand the effect of its public words on our government, our allies and our enemy. Throughout the summer and fall of 2009, as experts were getting more pessimistic about success in Afghanistan, President Obama began having second thoughts. He was conflicted between his campaign statement that Afghanistan was the good and necessary war and his supporters’ concerns that America not get bogged down in another unwinnable Vietnam.
Finally, he announced his decision in his December 2009 speech at West Point, where he stated: “(A)s commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
“… (T)aken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.”
So was born a conceptual confusion that is leading us to defeat in that war. As I and many others observed a few weeks after the speech:
“The confusions as to intentions, strategies and exit-timing started immediately after the president’s Dec. 1 speech, and have gotten dangerously worse in the ensuing month. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and the top generals all said we were there to win and the July 2011 exit date was conditional on whether enough had been accomplished by then. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, adviser David Axelrod, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the president all indicated July 2011 was real, and senior White House sources said ‘winning’ was not an objective … Saturday’s Washington Post … laid bare the shockingly different understandings of the Afghan mission held by the White House and the Pentagon (see ‘Civilian, military planners have different views on new approach to Afghanistan, Dec. 26.) … A senior Democratic staff member in Congress told The Post: ‘Is the surge a way of helping us leave more quickly, or is the timeline a way to help win support for the surge? Which is the strategy and which is the head fake? Nobody knows.’ A senior officer is quoted in the article saying they ‘don’t know if this is all over in 18 months, or whether this is just a progress report that leads to minor changes.’”
In the ensuing two-thirds of a year, Mr. Obama and his senior aides proceeded to publicly characterize President Karzai and his brother as irredeemably corrupt and incompetent. Then, when Mr. Karzai started negotiating with the Taliban, he was invited to the White House for a heavy dose of warm words and good photo ops. The war continued to go worse and worse; Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal (and his aides) inexcusably whined to the press about the incompetence of the president and his top aides, was justifiably fired for it and was replaced by Gen. David H. Petraeus.
CBS, meanwhile, reported: “The Obama administration is giving different explanations of its July 2011 deadline for the start of an Afghanistan troop withdrawal, assuring foreign officials that it applies only to the 30,000 to 35,000 additional U.S. troops that President Barack Obama is sending next year (2010), but suggesting to Congress that it covers all U.S. forces.
“The conflicting versions suggest that the administration is trying to reassure U.S. allies in the region and elsewhere that the U.S. won’t cut and run, while telling a concerned American public, Congress and Democratic Party that it has an exit strategy.”
That last CBS observation gets us to the essence of the White House’s strategic communications blunder. The president and his men have confused the effect of “political spin” — when heard as such — on domestic public opinion with its effect when heard as formal pronouncements of state by enemies, allies and institutional forces such as the Pentagon.
The American public has become accustomed to discounting the spin of politicians — even of presidents. The public views political spin the way it does professional wrestling: It’s fun to cheer or boo, but don’t take it seriously.
Unfortunately, what the president and his political operatives meant as a little useful spin for their domestic base was taken as formal policy by foreign players — and they have acted accordingly. Our two allies in the Afghan War — Pakistan and Afghanistan — having heard the “spin” as policy have irrevocably taken the strategic action of discounting America as a reliable force in theater. And, as the president’s strategy relied on gaining and keeping their trust and loyalty, his strategy has necessarily collapsed. In the coming months, we should expect many more words of explanation in Washington and many more failures in Afghanistan. Alea iacta est (the die is cast).
Even the greatest chef cannot unscramble an egg. Even the president of the United States cannot unspin his words
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/the_anatomy_of_defeat
Looks like the White House is backing off this story. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/white-house-muslim-outreach-task-nasa/
A muslim friend gave me a VHS called ISLAM Empire of Faith, a PBS Home Video years ago. I think she was trying to convert me. It tells the documented story of the beginning and foundation of Islam. Violence was a key factor in the original converts and continues to be a factor in the radical sects. This should come as no surprise. Reasoning was in no way a part of the foundation of Islam, just converts by any measure. If reasoning was added to the religion well after 622 CE (Common Era), it was by Muslims much later. Like John Smith of the Mormons, the Muslim faith was founded on “visions”; faith. Both religions have transformed over the years. Lots of wives are no longer a part of the teachings of the Mormons, and there are many sects of Islam, with widely different interpretations of the Koran.
It is the radical sects who have left out reason, (personal responsibility that if they kill, they did it, not Allah). Unfortunately, the radical sects are more true to the birthing of Islam in the original sense.
Shawn, go to http://histclo.com/chron/me/me-islam.html and scroll down to the Faith and Reason paragraph. It explains exactly what happened, the time line and the ones to make the change.
[...] Drift – NASA Reaching Out to Muslims? AWESOME. submitted by VA [...]
[...] place *t* with 1/3 vote – Bearing Drift – NASA Reaching Out to Muslims? AWESOME. submitted by VA [...]
[...] place *t* with 1/3 vote – Bearing Drift – NASA Reaching Out to Muslims? AWESOME. submitted by VA [...]
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.