Sciences and religions in the late modern period

On 29 March 1883, when Al-Afghani was living in Paris, French historian Ernest Renan^[1] gave a lecture at the Sorbonne during which he considered the relation between “Islamism^[2] and science”. In his address, published in the following day's Journal des débats, Renan asserted that Islam is “foreign to all things scientific” and that “by nature, the Arab people likes neither metaphysics nor philosophy”. According to his reading of Arab-Muslim history, the sciences and philosophy created by the Arabs in the Middle-Ages may more rightfully be traced back to Greek-Sassanid rather than strictly Arab sources.

Al-Afghani answered him by way of an open letter translated from Arabic into French and published in the Journal des débats of 18 May of the same year and in which he insisted on the fact that the intolerance imputed by Renan is not the preserve of Islam but of all religions because “religions whatever name they may be given are all alike” they display an initial streak of intolerance: “« it has not been possible for any nation to be guided by pure reason from the outset »”. However, he went on to write that they provided the necessary pathway to lead humanity to civilisation: “« It cannot be denied that it is through this education, be it Muslim, Christian or Pagan that all nations left barbarity behind. »” He quoted in support of his assertion the major feats of the Arab-Muslim civilisation: conquests, the re-discovery of Greek philosophy and the development of sciences such as medicine, which the Arabs “« developed, extended, clarified, perfected, completed and coordinated with faultless taste, rare correctness and precision »”

Upon reading the text, Ernest Renan wasted no time in answering Al-Afghani and stated in the Journal des débats the following day that he shared the Muslim thinker's opinion on the matter of the relation between religion and reason: “« One way I may have appeared unfair to the Sheikh is in that I have not sufficiently developed the idea that every revealed religion finds itself on a collision course with positive science, and that Christianity shows in this respect the same propensities as Islam. »”

Thus, outwardly, both men concurred to say that religion, in the embryonic, or “barbarian” stage of its existence is incompatible with science and that, in its essence, it is hostile to it. However, an informed survey of the rest of their respecwhen hormtive works shows that the consensual tone pervading this courteous epistolary exchange falls short of conveying both men's position regarding science in their work as a whole, which is much more complex than at first it would appear. Having once trained for the priesthood, Ernest Renan never failed to stress that he was a pure product of Catholicism: “I was educated by the church, I owe her what I am and I shall never forget it”. In 1848, whilst drafting The Future of Science, he admitted to “no longer believing in Christianity”, though he had not lost hope one day, with the onset of old age to reconnect with the fervour of the Christian faith. According to him “« when the horizon closes, when the old man seeks to dismiss the cold fears that besiege him [...] then no rationalist will be so firm as not to turn to the God of women and children, not to seek reassurance from the priest »”. This would turn out to be a self fulfilling prophecy since in the foreword that he penned for The future of Science in 1890, that is two years before his death, Renan cast a critical eye on this early statement: “« I was [....] right to believe firmly in science and to make it the purpose of my life [...] immortality is achieved by striving for the eternity of one's work. According to early Christian thinking, which was correct, will rise from the dead only those who served the divine purpose, namely to bring the kingdom of God on earth. »” So science and religion may not after all be as mutually exclusive as he claimed in his exchange with Al-Afghani some years earlier, provided both are understood in specific ways, be they disputed – notably by the religious authority according to which Christianity could not be assimilated to humanism, no matter how good or beautiful, if it were bereft of transcendence.