14AR19-24

( - previous issue - )

Apologia Report 19:24 (1,207)

July 31, 2014

Subject: "Did Jesus pray to Allah?"

In this issue:

ISLAM - is it true that Christians and Muslims can't get along if they worship different Gods?

SCIENCE - secular reasons behind rejecting scientism

------

ISLAM

"Did Jesus Pray to Allah?" by Ryan McAnnally-Linz, "a doctrinal student at Yale University," and Miroslav Volf (Director, Yale Center for Faith and Culture <faith.yale.edu> and, who "teaches at Yale University and is author of Allah: a Christian Response [1] -- subtitled: "Several nations have recently banned non-Muslims from using Arabic words, including 'Allah' for God." The article itself begins: "IS IT WRONG for a Christian to pray to Allah?" The tone of the entire piece is strongly worded as an "either/or" proposition.

The authors observe that if Allah is not an appropriate name for Christians to use for God, then "prospects for respectful, trusting cooperation between Christians and Muslims are slim." This suggests an "end justifies the means" approach. Further, the authors reason that: "There is one and only one God. If Christians believe that Muslims do not worship that God, the we must believe that Muslims worship nothing, an empty, created idol, or else something demonic." They also conclude that if "Muslims actually worship a demonic force, then those Christians would have compelling reasons not to cooperate with Muslims. To do so would be to cooperate in opposition to God." On the other hand, "since Jesus *is* the truth (John 14:6), to deny the truth is to deny Christ. Knowningly accepting a falsehood for the sake of pleasant social outcomes is not an option.

"Thankfully," write the authors, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler <www.ow.ly/zJqCu> and those who agree with him "are wrong about Allah." Why? It is because "worship of 'Allah' is not, by definition, worship of a 'false god.' But how do we know this?" Answer: In a word, semantics. (The appeal to definition, above, introduces the approach.) The authors trot out four points to support their position:

1) No human language can adequately capture God

2) Christianity has always been a fundamentally translatable faith

3) "Allah" is a generic word for God

4) "It is only prudent for Christians to pray and worship 'Allah' if the meanings associated with that world are not radically opposed to what Christians say about God."

To support their perspective regarding this last proposition, the authors consider proponents of the opposing view who "usually emphasize two points: 1) Muslims reject that Jesus was and is the incarnate son of God; and 2) Muslims deny the Trinity, that God is three in one." The solution? The authors conclude that "just because someone denies these claims does not by itself mean that she doesn't believe in and worship God."

The authors go on to justify this by noting that in the Church's early history Christians recognized that other monotheists worshiped the the same God as they did. "Consequently, there is good reason to treat Muslim beliefs in and claims about Allah in the same way Jesus treated Jewish and Samaritan beliefs and Augustine treated the Neoplatonists. We may disagree about immensely important things about God, but we are disagreeing about God, not between gods, so to speak."

The authors consider the opposing view which asks, "isn't the character of 'Allah' in the Quran and Islam radically different from the character of God as revealed by Jesus?" They respond that "we think that there are good reasons for rejecting this argument." And those reasons boil down to the view that "Allah is demanding and punitive" is merely a stereotype and the claim that "the differences do not erase the commonalities" between the God of the Bible and the Allah of Islam.

In conclusion, "our visions for the common good are likely to overlap in meaningful ways. We have somewhere solid to plant our feet as we strive to promote that good." Thus, "in pursuit of the common good, ... our common God provides a common ground from which to begin." It seems that one unasked question is whether peaceful coexistence need be an either/or proposition. Cover story. Sojourners, May '14, pp16-19.

Volf's Wikipedia page sheds light on his methods and priorities: "Allah: A Christian Response ... is an exercise in 'political theology'; it explores the possibilities of peaceful co-existence of Muslims and Christians 'under the same political roof,' rather than the merits of Islam and Christianity as systems of salvation (an area in which there is substantially more divergence between the two religions than in regard to moral values)." <www.ow.ly/zJrky>

---

SCIENCE

"Doing Away with Scientism" by Ian Kidd (postdoctoral researcher in philosophy, Durham University) -- begins: "Most people agree that *science* is a good thing, and that *scientism*, by contrast, is a bad thing...." However, science hasn't been able to agree on a basic definition of itself: "Many decades ago, philosophers of science spilt much ink on the 'demarcation problem,' trying to identify what science is by distinguishing it from *pseudoscience.* It gradually emerged that this problem of defining science is rather difficult to resolve. [Kidd himself doesn't identify any "science fundamentalists" by name - although the "New Atheists" come to mind. - RP] Most of the criteria that were once popular are now seen as untenable, and the best accounts offered by historians and philosophers of science indicate that the search for the distinct essence of science is likely to be frustrating. ...

"Similar problems with definition appear when we turn to scientism...." Kidd presents the "received view" about scientism, in which "at least three ideas seem reliably to feature. ...

"The first idea sees scientism as a form of excessive admiration for the sciences, typically bordering on an uncritical veneration of it, or a pathological zeal....

"The second idea about scientism sees it as an exaggerating, distorting, and perhaps downright false conception of the history, nature, and methods of science....

"These two conceptions of scientism, in terms of excessive zeal and error, are not only connected; they also pull together to help generate the third feature of the received view of what scientism involves. ...

"Scientistic writers are not usually satisfied to rest content by affirming their zealous joy in science. Most of them - well, most of those who write books about it - sooner or later feel the need to derogate the other disciplines and traditions, and specifically those which they take to be either unscientific, or insufficiently scientific. ...

"Scientism can ... usefully be thought about in terms of an excessive admiration for science grounded in an erroneous conception of the history, nature, and methods of science. ...

"Whatever science is - and that is a large and on-going debate - it does not need scientism...." Philosophy Now, May/Jun '14, pp30-31.

-------

SOURCES: Monographs

1 - Allah: A Christian Response, by Miroslav Volf (HarperOne, 2011, hardcover, 336 pages) <www.j.mp/hkvAjC>

--------

( - next issue - )