The Ghazzali Blog

Reflections on the Enlightenment

2012-01-09T12:54:00.002-05:00

Bismillahiramanhiraheem
So I just finished my first semester of Graduate studies at Hartford Seminary. This was the first paper I wrote. I received an 8.5/10 on this paper. I have added the Professor's comments to show how true professors teach and how academic theological writing should be instead of being extreme polemics. (I am grateful for this grade because it helped me see where I needed to improve.) This paper was a simple reflection paper on one of the readings.

Reflections

I knew I would disagree with the philosophers and theologians that were going to be mentioned before reading chapter nine. I was pleasantly surprised how Karkkainen approached the subject, not portraying the Enlightenment as a majestic age of reason. After reading this chapter I am surprised that Enlightenment theologians, at least the ones mentioned, were not writing about rejecting religion instead they were trying to prove Christianity was superior to other religions. The reading upheld my firm belief that Enlightenment thinkers were not practicing reason but rather practicing blind dogma and acting like children[MCL1] . They closed their eyes and covered their ears, refusing to listen to the proof of any religion.

Karkkainen dispels the idea of it being an age of reason by mentioning that periods before the Enlightenment, such as the Middle Ages, were also called the “Age of Reason” and great scholastic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas came before the Enlightenment. By doing so, he does not discredit the advances and ideas of past generations rather, he correctly writes that it was the first time reason was exercised independent of church authority and supervision. However, it was not the first time a period was recognized as an age of reason. (p90)

Having properly explained the Enlightenment period and not portraying it as majestic, he goes on to explain the ideas of theologians and philosophers of the period. Personally I would have taken a more hostile approach because of my exclusivist leanings. I commend Karkkainen for only presenting the ideas of the Enlightenment thinkers and not let his own opinions seep [MCL2] through which I would have done.

There was a time that I avoided reading Enlightenment era works with the impression they were exclusively about disproving the idea of God and I only used to read works that were polemics against the thinking of the Enlightenment because of this misconception. Having avoided Enlightenment era writing, it certainly was eye opening to read a presentation about the it. [MCL3] Before I was under the impression the Enlightenment was fully secular, however it seems like it was only a move towards secularism and a different flavor of religious superiority thinking. The different flavor of religious superiority was a move towards inclusivist thinking, such as Schleiermarcher, not believing the Christianity was the only way but the best way (Karkkainen, p93) or Troeltsch view that all religions share the divine presence or revelation but other religions cannot be brought closer to Christianity.(Karkkainen, p97) The tools this new process used to look down on other religions were “history”, “common sense” and “reason” instead of using doctrine. By doing so they effectively neutered all religions of any supernatural elements making debates of what is right and what is wrong divorced of any divine guidance and subjugate them to logic, reason[MCL4] , and worst of all human temptation.

Reading about their denial of the supernatural elements in religion and the use of the new tools such as “reason” upheld my firm belief that Enlightenment thinkers were practicing blind dogma and not using reason at all. If they are truly reasonable and open to ideas, why do they ignore the proof[MCL5] that religions bring as if they were children. Denis Diderot’s claim that even if the entire population of Paris told him a dead man had just been resurrected he would not believe it (Karkkainen pg91), shows that Enlightenment thinkers were not trying to be “open minded” or anything of the sorts rather they had their beliefs and would ignore any evidence that ran the contrary. If we were to use reason and history, the fact that we have multiple sources from the earliest periods giving accounts of supernatural happenings, would that not be enough proof? Maybe not enough proof to know exactly which miracle happened or didn’t happen, but enough to know something did happen. But the Enlightenment thinkers stick to the “see it to believe” mentality. If we use this reasoning then we should just ignore all of history. If we have a large number of people giving the same account[MCL6] , all of who were eye witnesses, and have not had enough time to cooperate and make a story up[MCL7] , reason would dictate that there is some truth in what they say. Now if we live many years after the event, we should investigate the claims and see where each claimant’s source is coming from. Meaning we should trace back their claims to the eye witnesses of the event. If we find all the claims are coming from the same eye witness there may be room to be skeptical, but if all the claims trace back to many different eye witnesses then reason would lead us to two options: either there was a global conspiracy going on amongst the people who lived in the past and wanted to fool future generations by claiming they were eye witnesses to supernatural events, or miracles had actually occurred. [MCL8] Which is more likely, a grand hoax that requires impossible logistics or the event actually occurring?

Furthermore ignoring miracles and following people based on them being “ethical teachers” is a step towards relativism [MCL9] which people see as chaos and the absence of divine guidance. Who is to decide what one teaches is ethical? Many practices are considered ethical in one culture’s reasoning and completely abhorrent in another. The only way to know what is truly ethical and truly abhorrent is by divine guidance. To know the source of the divine guidance is through the miracles.

The reading has encouraged me to delve deeper in Enlightenment thinking which is surprising to me because it only upheld long standing beliefs. At the end of the day I am an exclusivist and to disagree with something without fully knowing it, is arrogant[MCL10] . Instead of avoiding it I should learn about it to see why people think in this manner and why it is so attractive if I wish to effectively articulate my objections to this type of thinking.

8.5/10 – This chapter obviously was thought-provoking for you. You do a good job of articulating some of the issues at play in the chapter and are ready to apply them to your own thinking. Be sure to push your own assumptions; hold them up to the same critique you’d want applied to Enlightenment thinking.

[MCL1]Those are strong words.

[MCL2]Objectivity is important in academic research.

[MCL3]?

[MCL4]Are logic and reason such bad things? Don’t we want our traditions to be logical and reasonable?

[MCL5]What is the proof? How are some of the claims of our traditions “provable”?

[MCL6]But where is this recorded? In a time when there were no newspapers or reporters? If there is only one text that records an event (e.g. the Bible) how do we really know that a large number of people offered the same account?

[MCL7]And, how do we know that this was not the case with texts that were written down hundreds of years ago? Or with texts that were written down decades after the events in question?

[MCL8]I’m not sure these are the only two options.

[MCL9]How so?

[MCL10]Absolutely. It’s important to be able to articulate clearly why you disagree with something and to propose a better scenario.

To My Students

2011-09-24T00:24:00.000-04:00

My time in Indonesia will soon come to an end. I will be leaving this wonderful place and returning to a place I once called home in order to finish my studies. The people I love the most in Indonesia, my home away from home, are my students. My students have taught me more than I can ever teach them; they have taught me a lesson more valuable than any lesson I could ever teach to anyone or anyone could teach me. It is a lesson in respect.

My parents used to tell me I did not know what respect was; I used to think I did. I observed my peers and concluded that I was more respectful to my parents. They would constantly give me example after example and I would not understand. I was always told on how little respect children in the west had, so I observed my foreign peers that my parents talked so highly about, and I only saw, what I thought to be, superficial displays of respect.

Since teaching the children of Sidoarjo, Indonesia I have learned what respect is.

My father once told me that knowledge may or may not change the world but respect will. And to my students I advise you all to never change. To always be respectful no matter how successful you become. With respect you gain more and more success.

-end

Education not Competition

2011-06-05T15:37:00.003-04:00

Bismillahiramanhiraheem
I have been in Indonesia for the last eight months and have been very busy. However that is not the reason for the absence. This piece took me seven months to write. I had so many things to say but no direction. This piece was edited time and time again taking out unnecessary ranting and provocation. I ask Allah that if any of my writings have a positive effect on people it will be this one. Ameen.

Education not Competition

"Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today."

Every parent will nod their heads in agreement to the words attributed to Malcolm X (better referred to as EL-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz in the Muslim community) quoted above. Then they will probably menacingly beam at their children. The child will understand this look as a command that they must never be wrong or make a mistake in the classroom or never fail a test.
This fear holds the child back from learning. An essential part in the learning process is to make mistakes. However, students who have succumb to fear would rather stay quiet and opt not to answer a question rather than trying. Their fear causes them to hesitate answering simple questions that have no right or wrong answer such as a simple, “How are you”. I had a student who is very bright and was probably the smartest child in the class but she was so afraid to get a question wrong you could literally see her whole body tremble and then see her eyes look from right to left out of fear. My question was “What did you do on the weekend”.
Why do parents instill this fear in their children? Is it for the child’s benefit or the parents’? The main reason parents put this fear in their children is because of competition. They must realize that education is not competition and there is no shame in failure. Failure helps the student by allowing him to redo what he or she may be weak in. However, parents are more concerned about saving face with their peers they do not concern themselves with what their child actually needs. Sometimes the parents go so far as to use under handed tactics to have their children pushed into the next grade or level just to save face. If the student is pushed forward because of their parents’ under handed tactics, the student will just have more troubles in the future. Furthermore the fear does not benefit the child at all specially during assessments because instead of actually thinking and stressing about the assessment they have in front of them, they stress about the consequences that will be brought upon them if they do not succeed. This factors into the student’s failure on a test and has no benefit to them. The parents get no benefit because now they must save face.
How does this factor into Islam? Well first we must look to a fictional character to understand where fear leads us. Yoda from the star wars films said, “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Fear (of anything except Allah) leads us to the dark side, we start to hate what we fear. When a teacher punishes a student for making a mistake the student subconsciously starts to hate the subject being taught and the teacher. If the student is punished for making a mistake while reciting, such as being slapped across the face or having his or her fingers being squeezed together with a pencil in the middle, do we really think he will love the Quran or the teacher?
Instead of having students compete against one another and live in fear we should promote cooperation between them. One of the best ways to learn is to teach the subject to others. Have stronger students help the weaker ones. It will enforce the subject to the stronger students and having their peers explain the subject the weaker students will be brought up in level. For parents who are skeptical, try to remember a time you did not listen to your child so they had to go to another adult who got through to you.
In secular education this helps because we start to have less dropouts and failures and a bigger percentage of people succeeding and working towards the betterment of society. However if we make students compete we create winners and losers. We have losers who become nothing of use and unable to better society and have the winners go on to become professionals but because they are so ingrained with the competition mentality they do not work for the betterment of society. Greatest example is of all these immoral doctors only caring about money. A doctor is no longer seen as a noble profession but rather is seen as a criminal.
As for Islamic knowledge this approach also has many advantages. For example one of the reasons for major sectarianism is because people cannot admit they are wrong. The arrogance a teacher develops that they could never be wrong is only an extension of their fears of making a mistake when they were students. However if we take out competition in Islamic learning we would effectively close one of the paths leading to arrogance. Another reason for a person to become arrogant is because a teacher is a person who has extreme power and even more trust; this position is an easy road to feel powerful. If we have stronger students help weaker students when the students eventually become teachers they will not be arrogant because part of their learning career was also teaching weaker students.
Education is not competition. Competition is when we have parties trying to get to the top while not caring for the other. Competition is when we step over others. Competition enforces arrogance. Leave competition in the sports arena and do not bring it into the centers of learning. Stop treating education like a sport. Parents should not be spectators who get into fights because their team lost. Our children are not football teams and schools are not arenas.