Pantheism is a major feature of much pagan spirituality today. I was wondering - is Islam a modern example of Deism?
I don’t think so. Islam would reject the “watchmaker” who has taken his hands off of the world.
At the same time, it seems like Islam shares with some forms of Deism an ultra-transcendent, virtually unknowable and essentially impersonal god. I could be mischaracterizing Islam at this point.
This is an accurate estimation in my opinion. The extent to which this is true varies across schools of Islamic jurisprudence, but not drastically. Some schools, e.g. the Hanbali madhhab, are opposed to any non-woodenly-literal interpretations of the Quranic text. Consequently, they affirm that Allah has "attributes" such as hands, feet, knowledge, etc. that are distinct from Allah. They also affirm that "There is nothing like unto [Allah]" (Quran 42:11). Thus, Allah has hands and feet (or one foot?), but they are nothing like ours, so we have no idea what these "hands" truly are and never can. It follows from this line of thought that we will never be able to know anything about Allah in terms of his "attributes"; otherwise, something in creation would have to be "like unto [Allah]". I distinctly remember Shabir Ally defending the view that Allah has body parts, but somehow not like ours, in a debate (most likely James White or Bob Morey). On the other hand, schools of thought that are more philosophically inclined, such as the Isma'ili madhhab, are open to non-literal interpretations of the Quran and, as such, are (in theory) able to avoid the hand-but-not-a-hand nonsense. However, the Isma'ili school has been heavily influenced by Neoplatonism, and this seems to be a general rule with Islamic philosophy. Islamic Neoplatonic schools of thought - characterized in part by the unknowable, indescribable Allah creating through his emanation(s), whether in the form of his "pen" or something else - by definition fit the criteria for belief in a "virtually unknowable and essentially impersonal god". Both "rational" and anti-rational Islam commit this same error. With all of this being said, there are still clear examples in the Islamic sources of the principle of Allah's ultimate transcendence being violated. Sunan Ibn Majah 190 (Grade - Hasan) reads:
Bavinck seems to leave us with two choices:
He seems to be saying that all false religions fall into either pantheism or deism. The apologetic significance to me is that it is the doctrine of the covenant that preserves the Creator- creature significance, yet also explains how God can relate to humanity (WCF 7:1).
I think we are more or less on the same page. If deism and pantheism are defined by Bavinck's comment above, I think he is saying that all false religions fall under deism or pantheism. Even if he is not defining them in that manner, he is saying that all false religions are either deistic or pantheistic-- communicating the exact same idea. I apologize for the misunderstanding; I assumed that you were operating under the aforementioned "hands-off" definition of deism - I don't think Bavinck is suggesting that all false deistic religions fall into that category. As I argued above, Islam does "elevate [God] endlessly above [creation]", and, as such, ought to be considered a deistic religion, properly defined.
Thank you for the insights Ryan. I am writing an article for our denominational magazine on the sexual revolution and worldviews and was considering using Bavinck's quote (in more understandable English
). This is making me think through the implications of this quote.Does this mean Islam remains a deistic religion in many respects, but does reject the 'watchmaker' argument?
It seems to me that Zack made the same assumption that I did— that by ‘deism’, you were referring to the idea that a god created the cosmos and subsequently ceased interacting with it. This form of deism is rejected by Islam; I think that’s what Zack was intending to say. But maybe Muslims should be this type of deist. They seem to want their cake and eat it too with Allah being apparently unable to condescend to the level of his creation yet simultaneously interacting with it in such a manner that should only be possible through condescension. Maybe it follows from the Islamic belief that Allah is unable or unwilling to condescend to the level of his creation that Allah does not interact with his creation, and Muslims are just inconsistent deists. This prima facie seems consistent with Bavinck’s comments on the matter, but I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around what types of “interaction” a deistic (as defined by Bavinck) god could have with his creation. It seems to me to be an act of condescension to create the creation in the first place.
Dallimore, in his insightful biography of George Whitefield 1:20, describes Deism as a form of religious rationalism and uses the standard definition that God is a form of first cause that made the world and that he revealed himself only in creation. You might say this is a form of impersonal condescension. I think the contradiction is within Deism itself.
