Epigraph

God’s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; He gives life and He causes death; and He has power over all things. He is the First and the Last, and the Manifest and the Hidden, and He knows all things full well. He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods, then He settled Himself on the Throne. He knows what enters the earth and what comes out of it, and what comes down from heaven and what goes up into it. And He is with you wheresoever you may be. And Allah sees all that you do. (Al Quran 57:2-4)

Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

Each religion has miracles of its own, and some sophisticated believers want to rationalize them within the laws of nature. The Christians have their resurrection, Eucharist, and Lazarus being brought back to life 3-4 days after his death.

Prophet Muhammad, may peace be on him, went to heaven this is what every Muslim believes. But was it a physical journey called Miraj or a spiritual one? Did he actually split the moon as a miracle, or was it made to appear so?

Are any of these miracles true? If all or some of them are true, how do they happen?

How can prayers be granted? Did God create the universe? Can the universe independently exist, or does God sustain it? Was the evolution of 9 million life forms, especially Homo sapiens, a blind process, or did God guide it? Today, we will tackle these questions holistically.

I’ll assume God exists, so I can then ask, in what way could a non-physical being intervene in the physical world, not only to give us miracles but also to grant our prayers? The same understanding would then explain how He created the universe, and sustained it, and guided evolution over billions of years to His desired end of creating humanity.

A deist, like many of the USA’s founding fathers, believes in a Creator but not in any further interaction. A theist, like most followers of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faiths, believes in a God who is actively involved with human affairs now and in their creation before.

But how could God do that? To examine this, let us examine the subject under three headings: first, what atheists will hold; second, what Al-Ghazali suggested, which is called occasionalism; and finally, a happy medium that gives us both freewill and Divine providence.

1. Atheism, Naturalism and Materialism

Atheists, by definition, only believe in naturalism.

Naturalism and materialism are philosophical perspectives often associated with atheism, particularly within contemporary discourse. While these terms are sometimes used interchangeably, they possess distinct meanings and implications.

Naturalism

Naturalism is the philosophical viewpoint that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. In this framework, the universe is understood through empirical observation and scientific inquiry, with phenomena explained by natural laws without invoking supernatural entities. Naturalism encompasses various forms, including methodological naturalism, which underpins the scientific method by assuming that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, and metaphysical naturalism, which posits that nature is all that exists, denying the existence of anything beyond the physical world.

Materialism

Materialism, closely related to naturalism, is the doctrine that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions. This perspective asserts that everything that exists is physical, and that mental states are reducible to physical states. Materialism has been a central tenet in various philosophical traditions and has significantly influenced scientific approaches to understanding the mind and consciousness.

2. Al-Ghazali’s Occasionalism

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058–1111), a prominent Islamic theologian and philosopher, is often associated with the doctrine of occasionalism—a view asserting that God is the sole causal agent in the universe, with created entities serving merely as occasions for divine action. This perspective challenges the notion of inherent causal powers within natural objects, emphasizing instead God’s immediate and continuous involvement in all events.

Al-Ghazali’s Critique of Philosophers

In his seminal work, Tahāfut al-Falāsifa (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), al-Ghazali critiques earlier Islamic philosophers, notably al-Farabi and Avicenna, who were influenced by Aristotelian and Neoplatonic thought. These philosophers posited that the natural world operates through secondary causes—mechanisms inherent within objects themselves. Al-Ghazali contended that such views limited God’s omnipotence and denied the possibility of miracles. He argued that what we perceive as causal relationships are not necessary connections but habitual associations established by God’s will. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Nature of Causation

Al-Ghazali maintained that the connection between what is habitually seen as cause and effect is not necessary. For instance, when fire burns cotton, it is not due to any inherent power of the fire but because God directly causes the cotton to combust upon contact with the fire. He emphasized that each event is a distinct act of creation by God, and the regularity observed in nature is a reflection of God’s consistent will, not of any intrinsic causal power within the objects themselves. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Defense of Divine Omnipotence

A central motivation for al-Ghazali’s occasionalism was to uphold the doctrine of divine omnipotence. He believed that attributing causal efficacy to created entities undermined God’s absolute power and compromised the belief in miracles. By denying secondary causation, al-Ghazali reinforced the idea that God is the immediate cause of all occurrences, thereby preserving the possibility of miraculous events that deviate from the natural order. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Philosophical Implications and Legacy

Al-Ghazali’s occasionalism had profound implications for Islamic theology and philosophy. It challenged the deterministic frameworks of earlier philosophers and emphasized a worldview where every event is a direct result of divine intervention. This perspective influenced subsequent Islamic thought and sparked debates about the nature of causation, the role of God in the world, and the limits of human reason in understanding the divine. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In summary, al-Ghazali’s occasionalism posits that God is the sole causal agent in the universe, with what we perceive as natural causation being merely habitual sequences established by divine will. This doctrine underscores God’s omnipotence and preserves the possibility of miracles, challenging the notion of inherent causal powers within created entities.

Now, the happy medium between naturalism and occasionalism:

3. Divine concurrentism

Divine concurrentism is a theological and philosophical doctrine that seeks to harmonize the sovereignty of God with the genuine causal efficacy of created beings. According to this view, both God and creatures are true causes that cooperate in bringing about effects in the world. This cooperation implies that while God sustains and concurs with the actions of creatures, these creatures also possess real causal powers that operate in conjunction with divine action.

Historical Context

The concept of divine concurrence has been a significant topic in the history of philosophical theology. Notable proponents include philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, who emphasized that God’s causal activity does not undermine the genuine agency of creatures. In Catholic theology, a distinction is made between concursus simultaneus (simultaneous concurrence) and concursus praevius (previous concurrence). The former refers to divine influence accompanying the activity of a secondary cause, while the latter involves divine influence on the causing agent itself. Thomists, for instance, assert that both types of concursus are required in any action of a created cause, providing an elaborate theory of “previous concursus” known as physical premotion. Other theological schools, especially the Jesuits, typically reject physical premotion and claim that simultaneous concursus is sufficient. Wikipedia

The Doctrine Explained

Divine concurrentism posits that every action in the natural world is the result of a joint causal operation between God and created agents. This means that for any given effect, God provides a general concurrence that enables the creature’s action, while the creature’s own causal powers are also genuinely operative. For example, when a person decides to move their hand, both the individual’s will and God’s concurrent action contribute to the movement. This perspective maintains God’s omnipresence and sustaining power while affirming the real causal capacities of natural entities.

Philosophical Implications

Divine concurrentism addresses several philosophical concerns:

1. Preservation of Divine Sovereignty: By asserting that God concurs with every action, this doctrine upholds the belief that God is intimately involved in the governance of the world.
2. Affirmation of Creaturely Agency: It recognizes that creatures possess genuine causal powers, allowing for authentic human freedom and responsibility.
3. Avoidance of Occasionalism: Unlike occasionalism, which denies any real causal power to creatures, concurrentism maintains that creatures are true causes, not merely occasions for divine action.
4. Rejection of Deism: Concurrentism opposes deistic notions that God is detached from the world after creation, emphasizing continuous divine involvement.

Contemporary Discussions

Recent scholarship has explored various models of concurrentism. For instance, Timothy D. Miller discusses three varieties of concurrentism—strong, weak, and moderate—and argues that a moderate version preserves the most important benefits of the strong and weak forms while avoiding their familiar difficulties. ePLACE

In summary, divine concurrentism offers a nuanced framework that seeks to balance the active involvement of God in the world with the genuine causal powers of created beings. It provides a middle path between views that either diminish divine sovereignty or undermine creaturely agency, aiming for a coherent understanding of causation that integrates both theological and philosophical perspectives.

Robert John Russell, a prominent physicist and Christian theologian, has extensively explored the interplay between divine action and natural processes. As the founder and director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS) and the Ian G. Barbour Professor of Theology and Science in Residence at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, Russell has significantly contributed to the discourse on how God might interact with the world without contravening the laws of nature.

Non-Interventionist Objective Special Divine Action (NIODA)

Central to Russell’s perspective is the concept of Non-Interventionist Objective Special Divine Action (NIODA). This framework posits that God can act specifically and purposefully within the natural world without violating its inherent laws. Russell suggests that such divine actions are “objective” in that they produce real effects in the world, “special” because they are particular and intentional, and “non-interventionist” as they do not disrupt the natural order. This approach seeks to reconcile the belief in a responsive and active deity with the integrity of scientific explanations. The mechanistic world of Newton and beyond of lock-step causality did not allow for it. But, we have a more sophisticated understanding since the 1920s.

Divine Action and Quantum Mechanics

Russell has delved into the potential of quantum mechanics as a domain for divine action. Quantum events are characterized by inherent indeterminacy, presenting opportunities for God to influence outcomes without contravening physical laws. Russell proposes that God could determine specific outcomes of quantum events, thereby guiding processes in the natural world in a manner consistent with both scientific understanding and theological principles. This perspective allows for a harmonious relationship between divine providence and the unpredictability inherent in quantum mechanics.

The image that he loves to use is that you’re standing by a pool of water, and you see the reflection, and some photons are going off the surface, and you see the blue sky. Some go through the surface, bounce off the bottom, and you see the bottom. So you’re seeing both at once. Yes. All photons are identical. What tells each photon whether to bounce off the surface or to go through the bottom?

So, stand by a pool, and you’re seeing quantum mechanics in action. Makes sense. But how does this get God involved in determining the flow of events? Well, the first step is to say God is acting through all the laws of nature. So, whatever happens, God is involved in it. The point here is to say there is no sufficient, efficient natural cause. So, God’s action could be thought of as more intense or more special because God is acting in those events in special ways. That is, God is determining, because nature doesn’t, whether the photon bounces off the surface or goes through it. That is quantum physics and God together for a layperson in a nutshell.

This provides for God acting all the time for general providence, His attribute of Al Rehman and special providence Al Raheem.

Divine Action and Chaos Theory

In addition to quantum mechanics, Russell has explored chaos theory as a potential avenue for divine action. Chaos theory examines systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, leading to unpredictable and complex behaviors. Russell suggests that God could subtly influence these initial conditions, resulting in significant outcomes without overtly intervening in the natural order. This approach maintains the consistency of natural laws while allowing for purposeful divine guidance within the complexities of chaotic systems.

Integration of Theology and Science

Throughout his work, Russell emphasizes the importance of integrating theology and science. He advocates for a constructive theology that engages with contemporary scientific insights, aiming to develop a coherent understanding of divine action that respects both theological traditions and scientific methodologies. By exploring concepts like NIODA, Russell seeks to provide a framework where belief in divine action coexists with a commitment to scientific integrity.

In summary, Robert John Russell’s and others’ contributions offer a nuanced perspective on how God might interact with the world. By proposing models that respect both the sanctity of natural laws and the possibility of divine action, he provides valuable insights for those seeking to understand the relationship between faith and science.