CONTEMPORARY INTEGRATION MODEL OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF JOHN.F HAUGHT AND MEHDI GOLSHANI:

PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION FOR STRENGTHENING ISLAMIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDONESIA[1]

Dr. Muhammad Thoyib, S.Pd.I., M.Pd[2]

A.    INTRODUCTION (PRELIMINARY)

This paper will try to explore significant issues in terms of scientific development as well as an effort to strengthen the Islamic Higher Education (IHE/PTAI) in Indonesia that is on about the integration of science and religion, particularly in the context of the development of science and technology (Science and Technology) that is rapidly increasing now. The changes of several State Islamic Higher Educations (PTAIN) such State Islamic Institute (IAIN) becomes the State Islamic University (UIN) is one of the tangible evidence of how the encounter of two entities of knowledge (religion and science) has resulted in a process of metamorphosis that is very interesting to be analyzed. In other side, many Islamic Higher Educations (including Private Islamic Higher Education/PTAIS) that opened public courses such as psychology, sociology, engineering and others during this postscript viewed as 'deviant' from Islamic Higher Education philosophical foundation itself is a proof that the process of metamorphosis has been 'infected' Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia. A pretty deep anxiety is how to interpret integration itself and this study (research) is an attempt to understand the contemporary integration of religion and science well and comprehensively.

The author will attempt to trace the dimensions of integration with dismantling the thoughts of two very influential academic scholars at this time. The figures are John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani. John F. Haught is a Christian theologian of the United States who is often referred as one of the leading systematic theologians. While, Mehdi Golshani is an Iranian physicist who in recent times started to show great attention to religion, especially when linking science that he wrestled with religion which he believed. The choice on John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani’s thoughts because now they have a very strong influence in the integration discourse, as well as in the West or in the East. Besides, the two figures are quite realistic in putting religion when it intersects with science. Both closely follow the development of science, but at the same time still remain critically  and being religious men. It's kind of different from the thoughts that tend to try to force science to back in pristine shape as idealized by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Against such that, the integration project between science and religion is expected to became a trending big job ahead (futuristic orientation).

This paper will comprehensively outline a few basic things of the thoughts of John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani. To facilitate tracking more easily, in every character, will be approached with discoursed four basic things: First, it will be shown how religion and science interpreted by each of the characters (John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani) and what happens when religion should meet with science; whether science and religion look hostile glasses (conflict), aloof but not hostile to each other, exchanged mutually equal, or even merge with each other and unite themselves?. Second, combing the basic assumptions used by John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani in integrating science and religion. This assumption is an important part that can integrate scientific justifications with descriptions of religion. Third, it will discourse the real form of integration where John F.Haught offers a theology of evolution  and Mehdi Golshani with Islamic science. This description will clarify the form (model) of integration offered. The third pattern is the approach chosen to facilitate the mapping of thought as well as the materials to be able to see with clarity of thoughts that proposed by each figures (scholars). And the Fourth, this paper will link  and at the same time combine the two men thoughts in the context of the development of Islamic higher education (IHE) in Indonesia, with the hope of Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia can be more acceptable and dynamic in with the times, without losing its vitality roles as an institution of Islamic education committed to the development of Islamic values ​​in the stage of world civilization. Borrowing the language of Fazlur Rahman[3], Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) is not just participant, but more than that, as one of the driving forces of world civilization that is able to 'grounded' as well as 'offers' the values of Rahmatan lil 'Alamin more elegant, so it is able to survive continoually and exist in today's global competition.

B.  DISCUSSION

1.   Biography of The Evolution Scientist and Islamic Scientist: John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani

John F. Haught is a Roman Catholic theologian in America as well as a Senior Research Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. His area of expertise is systematic theology, with a special interest in issues of science, cosmology, ecology, and reconciling evolution and religion. John F. Haught testified against teaching intelligent design in schools because of religious nature in the case of Kitzmiller Dover Area School District. John F. Haught also involved in a controversy over the publication blocking the video of the public debate about the compatibility of science and religion. John F. Haught founded the Center for the Study of Science and Religion  at Georgetown. He is Chairman of the theology department of Georgetown between 1990 and 1995. At his creationic evolution, John F. Haught views on science and religion as two different levels and are not competing explanations, while emphasizing the "Science and religion can not logically exist in a competitive relationship with each other.". John F. Haught graduated from St. Mary Seminary University in Baltimore and later received his PhD in theology from The Catholic University of America in 1970. John F. Haught is the winner of the Owen Garrigan Award in Science and Religion in 2002 and Sophia Award in 2004 for Theological Excellence. In addition, in 2009, in recognition of his work on theology and science, John F. Haught was awarded a Doctorate Honoris Causa by the University of Leuven[4].

In the same context with John F. Haught, Mehdi Golshani is a wordly scholar and muslim expert in the field of physics who was born in Isfahan, Iran in 1939. S1 completed his education career at the University of Tehran with a specialization in physics in 1960. While obtaining his MA and PhD from University of California in the field of physics anyway. Academist career that has produced more than 20 books and 100 international scientific articles is so awesome that took him on a number of individual awards, both academic and governmental environments. Among the major awards earned by the professor of Sharif University of Technology, Iran Tehran are the John Templeton Award for Progress in Religion (World's Largest monetary award) in 2002, and so forth. His idea of ​​the magnitude of the Islamic Saince is so visible in the 2 landmark works; The Holy Quran and the Science of Nature and Can Science Dispense with Religion?[5] took him at the height of the popularity of international academics highly respected by the scientists world.

 

2. The Integration of Science and Religion in the Perspective of John F. Haught

a. The Attitude of Religion or Theology Towards Science

John F. Haught divides the relationship patterns of science and religion in four forms: (1). conflict, (2). contrast, (3). contact, and (4). confirmation.[6] The first relation places science and religion as two opposing entities from different angles, contentially, historically, and methodologically. In this relationship pattern occurs the flowing between scientific skeptics as power strongly affirms that no longer necessary of religious explanations with literal group (Biblical Literalist) who understands the Bible as the only source of truth. Encountering of two camps are mutually asserted that conflict raises no denouement.[7]

In contrast relations, John F. Haught suggested to make a clear distinction between science and religion so there is no conflict. This restriction is intended as an explanatory that each has a different area, so it should not justify religion, for example, with the categories that are owned by science. This contrasting pattern of relationships is important because conflicts often arise when the there is 'fusion' (conflation), namely the collapse of differences of science and religion that result in the loss of the elements that distinguish the two. Of course, this 'fusion' (conflation) occurs, both religion and science. The death punishment of Galileo’s story was an error in identifying religion areas that are imposed on the science.[8]

The next pattern is contact, with this relation, religion and science are directed to communicate with each other without losing its boundaries. This departs from the fact that there where they often met and mutually conditioned to express their own opinions. The last form of relationship, which clearly indicates the main project of John F. Haught is confirmation. He defines confirmation as "strengthening" or "support", that religion is full supporting the efforts undertaken by science to understand the universe. In a word, he said: "Religion is in a very deep way supportive of the entire scientific enterprise."[9] The confirmation form of religion to science is not because religion provides a set of knowledge about the universe such as those offered by science. Religion does not has detailed knowledge about particle physics or genetic code. This attitude is due principally to support the views of religion that the universe is limited, coherent, rational, and regularly, providing a common view that consistently maintains a scientific quest and liberates science from all forms of ideology that are imprisoned. For John F. Haught, religious-based searching led to higher awareness than the materialist worldview that stops searching just on the material realm.

b. The Foundation of Integration between Science and Religion

When John F. Haught stated that religion supports science with the pattern of confirmation, then the question that arises is what does underly it all? Whether the building could justify that science has a closed connection with religion? In view of John F. Haught, science can not fulfill itself (self-sufficient) in conducting scientific efforts. Science always refers to or rooted in the faith:

"Science, to be more specific, can not even get off the ground with out rooting itself in a kind of a priori "faith" that the universe is rationally ordered totally of things."[10]

Therefore, science can not stand alone, but it depends on the permanent entity. John F. Haught defines the permanent value as a source of inspiration that eventually turns on and develops further scientific exploration. Things that are fixed and always underlying science is "faith"  that the universe is orderly (and its accompanying laws) and rational. In building an integrative building between science and religion, John F. Haught offers epistemological readings that science is always rooted in the faith in which religion gives a very clear definition. Science would not want to say that its existence depends on a permanent order in the universe. For John F. Haught in there, "faith," gets meaning when associated with religion as the 'spirit' of faith. Schubert Ogden understands religion as a "guarantor" (re-assurence), as the most essential part to build confidence when the spirit is gone.[11]

In addition to its function as the first category of the scientific process, faith is the entity that is fundamentally capable of carrying humans toward a comprehensive knowledge (overall). This happens because of the limited human ability to understand the reality that requires the entity that placed as a source of knowledge. As stated by John F. Haught, "Faith is an attitude of acknowledging the limits of comprehension and of opening ourselves to being comprehended by that which transcends us"[12]

Therefore, science is not able to achieve the comprehensive nature when limiting itself in the realm of sheer material. Science should involve knowledge that comes from religion and God as a manifestation of the nature of transcendence. But science tends to regard such entities as the faith as knowledge that can not be decomposed by the principles (methodology) science. John F. Haught convinced that the presence of faith as a form of metaphysical worldview inspired by religion will lead to a deep understanding of evolutionary events. For him, any concept and understanding of science, a scientist is always shaped by the general vision of reality that he has. ".... This theological Metaphysics is a superior to the materialist alternative," Haught said.[13] So the Haught’s proposal is to make theology (religion) as the foundation or roots of science. Above this basis is the integration can be realized. If described in the body of a tree, then theology (religion) is the root, while the stem is the structure of science.

c. The Integration Form of Science and Religion (Theology of Evolution)

After seeing the integration patterns that have developed between science and religion, John F. Haught tries again more concretely by examining the integration of the theory of evolution and religion which he called theology of evolution. It is a theological response to the lack of reviews in evolution. In many religious view, the theory of evolution is accused as the most dangerous force for the existence of religion. But behind the concerns, criticality to bring the theory of evolution in theological perspective is still very little. In here, John F. Haught is boldly offering a very explorative readings, it’s how to led the theory of evolution until it charged theology.

John F. Haught’s criticism leads him to the theory of evolution because development of pretty extreme evolution. Currently, biology is a fortress of materialism. As quoted by Haught, Michel Russell said that Darwinism is the perfect incarnation of materialism theory.[14] Furthermore, dramatically Darwin's theory, in contrast to other modern scientific advancements, has pushed religion placed solely in the illusion of space that has no roots of truth. And there is no theory that is so threatening understandings about the goal of universe except the theory of evolution.

John F.Haught’s concern is how to read or interpret texts in the light of Darwinian scripture.[15] He set out in God After Darwin[16] that biological evolution is not only not against religion but more than that it is also a valuable gift to theology. With a very convincing, John F. Haught asserts that:

"Darwin has gifted us with an account of life whose depth, beauty, and pathos-when seen in the context of the larger cosmic epic of evolution-expose us afresh to the raw reality of the sacred and to a resoundingly meaningful universe"[17]

A part of what makes evolution is not in harmony with the idea of ​​God and not as shocking news of Darwin's natural selection process, but due to the inability of theology reflects deeply about the plight of divine dimension.[18] Understanding of God as the source of order  which determines all events in the universe is no longer able to give satisfaction. John F. Haught offers readings about God not merely as an agent who arranged everything to run according to its function, but he is also understood as a form of appearance of disharmony.

For John F. Haught, theory of evolution is a light that can illuminate and ultimately find deeper meaning of religion and God. In fact, he calls the theory of evolution as the deepest intuition because the light of evolution will bring theology stepping further in understanding ‘the ultimate reality'.

He describes the relation between religion and evolution as an 'engagement' in which Darwin’s thought was seen not as dangerous idea for the understanding of theology. Instead, he was placed as a source to reflect the meaning of life, God, and universe.[19] There are two effects that significantly affect theology: first, the emergence of a new interpretation of the character of "natural theology" (a search for evidence of the existence of God in the universe). The real form of natural theology is the emergence of theory of "intelligent design", the theory states that the creation process has been designed in such a way that raises life. Therefore, John F. Haught paid great attention to the second effect, ‘the evolutionary theology’. One concept that was enriched because of its encounter with the theory of evolution is an understanding about divine power. John F. Haught uses theology process to make sense of the process of evolution where evolution comes as an early form of creation because of the power of God and the actions taken against the world in a persuasive love rather than forcing power. God's power is not coercive but inviting, as if the force, it would be contrary to the very nature of love.[20] From here, it is clearly known that the figure John F. Haught is a theologian trying to integrate the science (theory of evolution) and religion.

3. The Integration of Science and Religion in The Perspective of Mehdi Golshani

a. The View of Religion or Theology towards Science

At the beginning of each book, Mehdi Golshani always starts with the assertion that Islam does not distinguish between science and religion because each oriented to understand God. God is the center of all human activities, although the activities are not in the form of formal worship, but when its became the cornerstone and main purpose of science, then the science was to have an equal footing with religion.[21] Mehdi Golshani looked for this activity, as a physicist, is a part of worship, then in his view there is no conflict or independent in science and religion.[22]

This understanding departs from a hadith which states that every Muslim is obliged to seek knowledge. According to Islam, the criteria of valuable or not knowledge depends on its usefulness and capacity to deliver an understanding of God. Therefore, any form of knowledge that is useful and has the capacity to reach God is a part of worship and of course is a must to learn.[23]

Science has brought a number of uses for mankind and to encourage people to be more familiar and closer to its creator. Scientific significance for Muslims, among others, are: first, science is able to improve understandings of God. Second, science is effectively able to increase the Islamic civilization and to realize the ideals of Islam. Third, science serves as a guide to mankind in the face of life's challenges.[24] If the presence of science covered by such an understanding the above, no doubt he was not opposed to religion, even science is part of the religion itself. With it, science is also being sacred and away from the values ​​that are contrary to religion (divinity). Diverse knowledge is not foreign to each other because of the way, each tried to make sense of God's creation that spread widely in this universe.[25]

Mehdi Golshani defines science as a tool to understand natural phenomena and is used to enrich or deepen the knowledge of the people who believe on the Lord. There are more than 750 verses in the Qur'an that mention about natural phenomena and most of it in the form of an order to learn and reflect on this phenomena.[26] In the perspective of the Qur'an, phenomena occurring in the universe can not be separated from the existence of God. Therefore, God must always be the end point of the process of scientist reflection. Knowledge of human creation, the heavens and the earth is an important part of God's presence. Mehdi Golshani[27] cites the following Qur'anic verse:

"And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and color; most surely there are signs in this for the learned." (Surah 30: 22).

Science in Mehdi Gholshani’s view must always be connected with divinity entity that encourages a scientist to know his creator. He also affirmed that the statements contained in the Qur'an is not a detailed description of natural phenomena, "Scripture is not an encyclopedia of science," said Mehdi Golshani. Scriptural descriptions of the process of day-poor, rain, and human creation are signs of God’s order for humans to reveal these phenomena.[28]

Mehdi Golshani looks at the phenomenon of separation of religion from science (in the Islamic world) emerged as Western science (starting the Renaissance) to infiltrate the Islamic world. While until the end of the first millennium, the philosopher and physicist Avicenna, does not do the separation between mathematics, physics, and theology. Philosophy in the view of Mehdi Golshani is not only limited to the region of ratio or the mind, because of as to be able to understand God is needed another way, namely revelation. In other words, there must be a combination of the two domains in order to achieve the goal. As one who deals with physics, Mehdi Golshani acknowledges that modern science has given wider space for increasingly aware of the presence of the planner (mastermind).[29]

For Mehdi Golshani, the important thing is cautious on scientific discoveries that interpreted empirically or materialistically. Whatever the form of scientific discovery: the big bang theory, the theory of evolution, and so forth, should be integrated with the metaphysical framework that is consistent with the philosophy of Islamic worldview. He says:

"Scientific knowledge can reveal certain aspects of the physical world; but, it should not be identified wint the alpha and omega of knowledge. Rather, it has to integrated into metaphysical framework-consistent with Islamic worldview. "[30]

Mehdi Golshani’s anxiety about modern science tends to conflict with religion is when the process of science interpretation does not involve the metaphysical framework of Islam. Therefore, the function of religion for science is as a medium to interpret scientific data. This involvement is important to avoid negative impacts posed by the interpretation of scientific materialism that distanced from value judgments.

b. The Foundation of Integration between Science and Religion

The emergence of tendency of scientists to not discuss metaphysics in their works begins when modern science began absoluting empiricism as the most primary ways in the knowledgeable process.[31] Empiricism believes that the empirical data is the only source of knowledge, so that science should issue any metaphysical concepts because it is not rooted in sensory experience. This view dominated the first half of the community of scientists in the late 20th century to the present, the influence is still strong in the academic world. But in the last 20 years ranging seen that empirical approach is superficial and not supported by properly study of the history of science.[32]

For Mehdi Golshani, nothing is pure tangible empirical science, because every time in interpreting experimental data and even when testing the accuracy of the data, it always depends on the initial conception (preconception) and the scientists assumtion. Einstein also said that the fundamental concepts and postulates of science can not be referred to the sensory experience or induction process, but can be traced in the human mind with every imagination and motivation owned. Mehdi Golshani rejected the notion that a theory as a direct result of experimentation. Such inference can not be directly from the experiments. Such inference can verify the truth. Agreement between theory and experimental facts is not necessarily so, because it is logically an inference can be drawn from a variety of premise.[33]

Mehdi Golshani’s tracking showed the presence of metaphysics in an attempt to bring a lot of leaders in physics for a more detailed description of the theories that can be expressed in his book From Physics to Metaphysics. All of which confirms that the science building is not solely derived from empirical data and experimentation, much of it necessarily involves assumptions, preconceptions and presuppositions of the scientists. This space is often not considered by science that already absolutedi empiricism as the most valid reading patterns.[34]

It has been described that metaphysics does not conflict with science, but whether the function of metaphysics? Metaphysics in the thought of Mehdi Golshani is not only interpreted as aspects of non-physical involved in science, but he made a more specific categories by putting preconceptions or outlook on life as a metaphysical realm. In the presumption that every imagination, values, and outlook on life intensely involved. All forms of the trend and the way of life rooted in or based on religion. Here in lies religion as a reference of the metaphysics building that finally put it as the basis of the science.[35] Integration between religion and science become interwoven when metaphysical framework as the foundation of science. The connection of science and religion has become possible due to the metaphysics that underlie integration contains values ​​or religion views.

c. The Integration Form of Science and Religion (Islamic Science)

Real form of the integration of science was built by metaphysical presumptions that eventually led to the presence of religion suggests that religiosity charge of someone become a crucial entity. If the scientist was a Muslim, the Islamic values ​​that he has that will influence the orientations of science. This is where the importance of Islam as a worldview that participating in the construction of science. Mehdi Golshani is offering Islamic sciences, as a concrete form of union that puts science and Islam as a complementary building. Example that arises is how to define precisely what is the meaning of Islamic science. Mehdi Golshani rejects the view that science is value-free, so it might not include the concept of Islamic science to a independent building. Thus, he does not agree with many people that mean the Islamic science as a discipline that addresses to the miracle of Qur'an or Islamic tradition as a way to prove the existence of God. More than that is not right that Islamic science emerged because only a view that science came from the Muslim scientists.[36]

He believes that the workings of science, such as the selection of theory, which relies heavily on what he called a metaphysical presumption of scientist. In his explanation,  metaphysical commitment also plays a very important role in the development and interpretation of a theory. Here in lies where the value of a person's Islamization greatly affects work patterns and how interpretation is done. So, Mehdi Golshani asserted: "If science was simply based on simple observation, then there would be no difference between Islamic or non-Islamic science."[37]

Metaphysical outlook of a scientist about nature or physical reality clearly affects theory or scientific outlook made. And it is shaped by philosophical or religious commitments owned by scientists. In Mehdi Golshani’s note there is fact that the religiosity idea has an impact in the action, selection process, and evaluation of a theory.[38] This view that brought him to the view that Islam should be an integral part of the development of science. Here, Mehdi Golshani calls Islamic worldview as the key to how science is shaped by religion. Mehdi Golshani mentions three elements of the Islamic worldview that affect  knowledge and science in particular. These elements include:

1)   Singular nature of God (al-Tawhid). This has resulted in the emergence of the concept of creation unity and the views associated with each other among the various creatures that exist on earth. Also with the knowledge, all forms of knowledge are a manifestation of the unity of creation or everything that exists on earth. Therefore, scientific quest must be synthesized for the realization of a harmonious world.

2)   Faith in the supranatural and the limitations of human knowledge. This view confirms that reality consists not only of a physical nature alone, but there is a reality that is not covered by the human senses. Faith in the reality of the supranatural and human limitations will produce understandings at the level of sensory, non-sensory as well as certain infinite.

3)   Commit to moral values. The development of science must be accompanied by knowledge of ethics. Science without accompanied by ethical considerations will encounter a lot of problems. Ethics education becomes very important to cultivate moral concern and responsibility.[39]

The three categories are the values in principle ​​held by the Abrahamic religions  that show similarity of views between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Therefore, Mehdi Golshani puts these characteristics in terms of "theistic religion."[40] With the advent of Islam in the construction of science, it does not mean that it will change the science contruction that has been agreed upon by the scientific community. Therefore, he rejects the definitions of Islamic science that comes out of the concepts he proposed, among other things: first, the scientific activities (testing, observation, theorization) will be conducted in the new pattern. Second, Physico-chemical research should refer to the Qur'an and Sunnah. Third, entering the wonders dimensions of the Qur'an in Islamic science. Fourth, science is back in the old scientific theory. And fifth, all forms of science and technology that emerged in the last century, must be stopped.[41]

This pattern also shows the totality of science, where science is not just made up of experiment and observation, but is equipped with metaphysical considerations that would make science became a comprehensive search. So complex realities that can not be captured only by the ability of human cognitive or sensory, but must be equipped with an understanding of immaterial reality that always underlies human mind in interpreting something. This is where Islamic worldview got the place.

4. The Intersection of  John F. Haught’s and Mehdi Golshani’s Thoughts in The Construction of Science and Religion

In the context of the relationship of science and religion, metaphysics lies there on the science epistemological structure that serves as the foundation for the existence of science. A concrete form of metaphysics is ‘faith’. Like a door, faith is the key that allows humans venture further into the house. Therefore, faith serves as a first step that must be passed to the secrets of reality. Through faith, human consciousness know its limitations and the same time lead to the knowledge of higher dimension or depth dimension.[42]

In scientific exploration, a scientist has to committe to the belief that "The universe can be understood (the universal is intelligible)" or "Truth is worth seeking." According to John F. Haught, the commitment of scientific belief has conformity to the vision of religion. And science has a deeper meaning when paired with a religion context. Metaphysical theological framework will bring discoveries of science more understandable (intelligible).[43]

John F. Haught very clearly defines metaphysics as a common vision to see something, so puts religion as a building that could fit into it. Religion that brought the general principles influence on how science should be interpreted. But John F. Haught claims that religion is the most powerful entity could be a framework for science (evolution) disproved by Richard Dawkins. For Richard Dawkins, since the discovery of the theory of evolution, religion no longer has a significant place in the building of science. Richard Dawkins interpreted natural selection as a Blind Watchmaker, blind because it is not looking forward and not struggling that is being evidence of no role of the religion there.[44] Religion view that the universe aimed where everything is in God’s authority that no longer significant.[45]

For George F. R. Ellis what Richard Dawkins has been out of the realm of science because he has done metaphysical-philosophical justifications.[46] It is also alleged by John F. Haught[47], where that sort of thing categorized as scientism. The affirmation of John F. Haught even his understanding of science must be accompanied by a theological concept arose because for him, the theological building is superior or satisfying than explanations offered by materialism. There are two fundamental things why metaphysics with the theological charge has a deeper frame. Its are an understanding of power  and the dimension of power when connected to the autonomous nature of the evolution of science. Here, he gave an example of the character of God’s humility as a theological character that allows true novelty that arise spontaneously. This is contrary to the materialist that view the phenomenon interpreted deterministically. John F. Haught also does not agree with the view that the universe as a eternal and permanent (fix) stretch.[48] From the above discussion shows that the theological building offered by John F. Haught is theological building inspired by the theory of evolution so that the unevolutive theological building is not being an ideal theological building. It is usually reflected in the form of  "Intelligent design".

The view of John F. Haught about the integration foundation of science and religion has similarity with Mehdi Golshani’s thought mainly about the meaning and function of metaphysics. Mehdi Golshani often called metaphysics is in line with wordview, a word that has the same meaning as the general vision or perspective.

"A wordview is a framework within our minds operate. It includes our metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions about God, the universe and humanity. Our worldview affects our decisions, priorities, values ​​and goals. It brings our thoughts to a unified whole"[49]

The thing that being main concern of Mehdi Golshani is science that can never be neutral without being influenced by the worldview of scientist. He explains in depth how the science is not neutral or value-free. Science is always influenced by the trends that are owned by a scientist. Here he was to categorize the space as a metaphysical presumptions. He denied the suggestion that says if science can be entered by ideology, religion, or other values ​​that are beyond the structure of science, then science is not universal anymore. For Mehdi Golshani, definition for universal science or neutral science is not exist in principle, if there is then the science is limited only to the process of mere description. Mehdi Golshani said:

"..... Science could be a universal enterprise, if the findings of empirical science were not extended beyond their context of discovery and if Scientists stopped at the description of the phenomenon."[50]

In line with the views of Mehdi Golshani who sees science can not stand alone especially in the process of interpretation or verification, Kuyper asserted the same thing. For Kuyper, on the level of representation, a view of life is not involved or neutral, but when associated with the decomposition of theory, then it involves interpretive assumptions which are outside of the body of science, it is the metaphysical dimension worldview (religion), which shaped the construction of science. In fact, he put the Bible as a way of life that should form the science because it (religion) did not conflict with science, especially in the realm of theoretical aspect.[51] The most fundamental of similarity that exists is that Mehdi Golshani and Kuyper put commitment (guiding commitment) as an entity that has a big contribution early in the development of science.

Therefore, John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani in the context of integration basis tends to have a lot of similarities in common. The fundamental similarity of the two figures are both using the metaphor of "roots" to combine science and religion. John F. Haught tried rooting science on the religious views about reality. Similarly, Mehdi Golshani rooted science in religion views. In its position as the root, religion gives assurance that nature which is being the study of science is a rational natural, orderly, and has laws. Without the belief in the existence of law on a regular basis, there will be no conceptual fondation for development of scientific theories. In here, they make religion as the basis of scientific work.[52]

5. The Contribution of Integrative Thoughts of John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani for Strengthening The Existence of Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia

From several common fundamental intersections, the both integrative view of John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani can be also elaborated substantively in more academic-operational dimension as an effort to strengthen the existence of Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia. Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) as we have seen in recent years experienced an outstanding academic confrontation with the development and progress of world science and technology which 'forced' it to make the very resistensive process of metamorphosis to balance themselves with the development of science and technology (IPTEK) as well as efforts to continue to 'live' in the arena of higher education world competition that is getting louder. On the other hand, the two men thought is very possible to be adapted in the academic arena of Islamic Higher Education who have the same substantive characteristics to be achieved, namely the development of science and religion that is more integrative, regardless of the spirit of their different religious background.

The Changes of a number of State Islamic Higher Education (PTAIN) to become State Islamic University (UIN) and so many Islamic Higher Educations (including Private Islamic Higher Education/PTAIS) that opened public courses such as psychology, sociology, engineering and others during this postscript was viewed as 'deviant' from Islamic Higher Education philosophical foundation itself is a proof that the process of metamorphosis has been 'infected' Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia.

Regardless of substantial debate in the academic arena, according to the author there are some urgent things of the two men thought which can be served as the basis of philosophical and academic foundation for Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia in order to strengthen the process of metamorphosis to fit the existing of science and technology development, without losing identity themselves as Islamic morality and social-cultural institution, as once defined by Azyumardi Azra.[53] Some fundamental things are: first, the development of scholarly study in Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) always allowed to continue to follow the development of science in the context of globalization of science which continues to grow with relying the development process on philosophical values ​​of Islam so that the spirit entities of science and technology developed is not out of the corridor of religious ethics, as the basic theory of evolution theology as defined by John F. Haught, which according to the author is seen as Islamic micro design of the integration of religion and science. To strengthen the development as well as to enrich the wealth of the scholarly study, is also necessary to explore a number of knowledge independently associated with the science contained in the Qur'an and the Hadith, or the reality of Sunnatullah that will allow the increasing number of science (new discoveries of Islamic sciences) that will be born from the Islamic Higher Education world (PTAI) as a basic view of Islamic science theory initiated by Mehdi Golshani, which the author considers as Islamic macro design. With the integration of two approaches, will allow for Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia to not only be able to survive and exist in global competition arena of higher education, but more than that would be able to be a primary locomotive of Islamic civilization renaissance that will be born in Asia, as many pointed out by Islamic thinkers and The West, like Fazlur Rahman, Rajak Ahmad al-Faruqi, Naquib al-Attas, Daniel S. Lev, and so forth.[54]

Second, the efforts of development of science and religious studies integratively on Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia, need to be done on the basis of the values ​​of religious morality that 'live' in each of these studies perpetrators. In that context, of course, all components of the existing academic community of Islamic Higher Education, especially the leaders and teachers as well as the basic theory of John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani who stressed the importance of perpetrators religious belief as the root of all the processes and findings of science there. With such principles, science and technology developed by Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia will not always only live in the hearts of its academic community but more than that will form the high morality civilization because based on strong religious foundation. As we know, the process of metamorphosis has been done by Islamic Higher Education as being State Islamic University (UIN) also left a number of issues and concerns that quite fundamental.

Of which, with the change, UIN is being considered as institution that increasingly dry touchs values ​​of religious praxis, even though it is basically the knowledge of religion born from the institution itself.[55] On the other hand, with that change, raises concerns that public interest against the religion faculty also undergone a metamorphosis that actually is contradiction, where religion faculty is seen as Second Class, not the top choice, as a result, many religion faculty are forced to 'shut down' due to the absence or lack of students. These issues and concerns should be taken seriously by the Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia by trying to formulate the idea of ​​integration values of science and religion from John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani in the application of scientific development in the institution, so that Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia is not only large in quantity, but the quality is also balanced.

Third, as a paradigm of Mehdi Golshani and John F. Haught who see science is value-free dimension (neutral), then the efforts to develop science and religion in Islamic Higher Education should be integrated since the beginning has been based on religious values, so that religion will be the soul for science construction and technology that will be explored and developed by Islamic Higher Education. With such view, Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) is not only able to develop science and technology in more innovative, but also able to establish Islamic brand design of the characteristics of science and technology developed, as efforts to strengthen the existence of Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia as well as a representation of the Islamic civilization in Southeast Asia has its own characteristics, without losing the competitive values and excellence that are expected to be able to speak a lot in the context of higher education global competition.

C.    CONCLUSION

Departing from the descriptions above, we can conclude a number of substantive conclusions, namely:

1.   John F Haught 'sees' and 'interprets' the integration of science and religion as 'two faces of epistemology' that are touching each other and bringing out the enlightening complementation. This shows how science and religion dug into the depths so that each will meet in the same estuary. While, Mehdi Golshani is not trying to offer movement space for religion. For him, religion occupies an area of ​​metaphysical worldview that does not has to accelerate with the discoveries of contemporary science.

2.   John F. Haught’s courage for elaborating evolution for religion compatibility is a kind of courage because it necessitates the reading of theological shift. While Mehdi Golshani judges religion into corners of conduction of scientific orientations as well as guidance in applying science in accordance with Islamic values.

3.   John F. Haught's integration model spawned evolution theology that is a building of theological epistemology 'faceless' of modern reconstructionists who take religion so much for its sake of conformity with the development of science. In other words, theology is a barometer of scientific theories. While the integration model of Mehdi Golshani births 'theology of structural integration or Islamic Science' where there is no science that is neutral or value-free, science has always been shaped by the metaphysical foundation of a scientist. The inclination to incorporate Islamic entity in the structure of science.

4.   The Contribution of two men thoughts (John F. Haught and Mehdi Golshani) may serve as a philosophical foundation in the effort to strengthen the existence of Islam Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia, through: first, the development of scientific discourse in the Islamic Higher Education is done by continuing to follow developments of science and globalization of science with relying the development process on Islamic philosophical values. Thus, the spirit entities of science (technology) is not out of the corridor of religious ethics as a new discoveries of Islamic sciences in the Islamic Higher Education (PTAI). Second, the efforts of development of science and religious studies integratively on Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia, are needed to be done on the basis of the values ​​of religious morality that 'live' in each of these studies perpetrators. Third, th efforts of development of science and religion integratively in Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia since the beginning have been based on religious values, so that the religion will be spirit for the construction of science and technology that will be explored and developed by Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia genuinly.

REFERRENCES:

Azra, Azyumardi. Pendidikan Islam, Tradisi dan Modernitas Menuju Milenium Baru. Jakarta:Logos. 2000.

Bagir, Zainal Abidin. “Bagaimana ‘Mengintegrasikan’ Ilmu dan Agama?.” Dalam. Integrasi Ilmu dan Agama. Bandung: Mizan. 2005.

Bagir, Zainal Abidin.“Islam, Science and ‘Islamic Science’: How to ‘Integrate’ Science and Religion.” In Science and Religion in Post-Colonial World. Australia: ATF Press. 2005.

Barbour, Ian G. Religion and Science. New York: Harper SanFrancisco. 1990.

Barbour, Ian G. When Science Meets Religion. New York: Harper SanFrancisco. 2000.

Dawkins, Richard. “Is Science a Religion?” Published in The Humanist on line, January/February, Accesed on December 6^th. 2004.

Golshani, Mehdi. “Sacred Science vs Islamic Science.” In Zainal Abidin Bagir, ed. Science and Religion in a Post-colocial World. Australia: ATF Press. 2005.

Golshani, Mehdi. From Physics to Metaphysics. Iran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies Publication. 2003.

Golshani, Mehdi. Issues in Islam and Science. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS). 2004.

Golshani, Mehdi. The Holy Quran and The Science of Nature. New York: Global Scholarly Publication. 2003.

Illis, George F.R. “The Thinking Underlying the New ‘Scientific’ Worldviews”. Dalam Russel, Robert John et al.eds., Evolutionary and Molecular Biology. USA: The University of Notre Dame Press. 1996.

Haught, John F. Deeper Than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution. USA: Westview Press. 2003.

Haught, John F. God after Darwin A Theology of Evolution. USA: Westview Press.2000.

Haught, John F. Science and Religion: In Search of Cosmic Purpose . New York: Paulist Press. 1995.

Haught, John F. Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. New York: Paulist Press. 2000.

Haught, John F. The Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion and the Quest for Purpose. New York/Ramsey: Paulist Press. 1984.

Rahman, Fazlur. Islam and Modernity. New York: Chicago Press. 1996

Swinburne, Richard. Is There a God?. Oxford New York: Oxford University. 1996.

W. Mark Richardson, Slack, Gordy ed. Faith in Science: Scientists Search for Truth. New York: Routledge. 2001.

Wyjkstra, Stephen J. “Should Worldviews Shape Science? Toward an Integrationist Account of Scientific Theorizing.” In Van Der Meer, Jitse M. ed. Facets of Faith and Science. USA: University Press of America. 1996.

Zuhdi, Imam. Perguruan Tinggi Islam di Indonesia: dari Realitas ke Idealitas. Surabaya: Bintang Pustaka. 2012.

---

[1]. This paper is written to be submitted at the program of Annual International Conference on Islamic Studies (AICIS)-2013 that celebrated at State Islamic Institute (IAIN) Mataram.

[2]. Is a Lecture at Islamic Higher College (STAI) of Miftahul Ula, Kertosono, Nganjuk, East Java.

[3]. See in Fazlur Rahman. Islam and Modernity. (New York: Chicago Press. 1996), p.27. Fazlur Rahman’s statement departed from the reality of the value of conservatism that has been the absolute guidelines as well as applicable foothold applied by Islamic educational institutions in almost all the world, while Islam was not able to accelerate the progress of civilization, including in anticipation of the rapid development of science and technology.

[4]. John F. Haught, Science and Religion: from Conflict to Conversation.  (New York: Paulist Press, 2000), p.315.

[5]. Mehdi Golshani. The Holy Qur’an and the Science of Nature, (New York: Global Scholarly Publication, 1992), p. 279 

[6]. As a comparison can be seen categorization made ​​by Ian G. Barbour. Religion and Science (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1990), p.27; as well as inside. When Science Meets Religion (New York: Harper SanFarancisco, 2000), p.31; namely: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration.

[7]. John F. Haught, Science and Religion: In Search of Cosmic Purpose.  (New York: Paulist Press, 1995), p.11

[8]. Ibid, p.13

[9].  Ibid, p.21.

[10]. Ibid, p.23.

[11]. John F. Haught. The Cosmic adventure : Science, Religion and the Quest for Purpose.  (New York/ Ramsey: Paulist Press, 1984), p.4.

[12]. Ibid, p.7

[13]. Ian G. Barbour. When Science Meets Religion. (New York: Harper SanFrancisco. 2000), p.54

[14]. See also John F. Haught in other works. Deeper Than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution (USA: Westview Press, 2003), p.xii. This is different from the early days of the modern age in which physics is viewed as the most dangerous science for religion because it has been reduced to purely material universe.

[15]. Ibid, p.xv.

[16]. Ibid. God after Darwin A Theology of Evolution (USA: Westview Press, 2000), p.121.

[17]. Ibid, p.138

[18]. Ibid, p.141.

[19]. Ibid, p.158.

[20]. Ibid, p.159

[21]. Golshani tried to show that Islam does not distinguish between general knowledge (science) and religion during both pivot on God. That assertion because many Muslims put with biology, physics, sociology, and so forth. Look in his book, The Holy Quran and The Science of Nature. (New York: Global scholarly Publication, 2003), p.39.

[22]. W. Mark Wichardson, Gordy Slack, (ads.). Faith is Science: Scientists Search for Truth (New York:Routledge, 2001), p.121.

[23]. Mehdi Golshani, From Physics to Metaphysics.  (Iran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies Publication, 1997), p. 5 

[24]. Ibid, p. 45-46

[25]. Mehdi Golshani. The Quran and The Science of Nature (New York: Global scholarly Publications, 2003), p. 49.

[26]. Ibid, p.163

[27]. Ibid, p.165

[28]. Richardson, Faith in Science: Scientists Search for Truth, p. 126.

[29]. Ibid,

[30]. Mehdi Golshani, Issues in Islam and Science (Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS), 2004), p.125. The alienation of science from Islamic values ​​is not only recognized by worldly Muslim scholars like Mehdi Golshani, Fazlur Rahman, Ahmad Rajak al-Faruqi, but is also recognized by many Western thinkers such as Einstein that clearly indicated that the collapse of world civilization morality is not currently others because science is placed like a "God" that can not be denied and resisted. Hence here came the adage, "Science without religion would be blind, religion without science would be crippled."

[31]. Mehdi Golshani. From Physics to Metaphusics. (Iran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1997), p. 4.

[32]. Ibid. Mehdi Golshani. Issues in Islam and Science. 2004. p.14.

[33]. Op.Cit. From Physics to Metaphisics. 1997. p. 21-23.

[34]. Ibid. p.56-57.

[35]. Zainal Abidin Bagir, “Islam, Science and ‘Islamic Science’: How to’Integrate’ Science and Religion,” dalam ed. Zainal Abidin, Science and Religion in a Post-colonial Wold (Australia: ATF Press, 2005), p.58.

[36]. Mehdi Golshani. Issues in Islam dan Science. 2004. p. 51.

[37]. Ibid.

[38]. Ibid, p.50

[39]. Mehdi Golshani. “Sacred Science vs Islamic Science,” dalam ed. Zainal Abidin Bagir, Science and Religion in a Post-colonial Wold  (Australia: ATF Press, 2005), p. 82-87.

[40]. Mehdi Golshani. Issues in Islam dan Science. 2004. p. 51

[41]. Ibid.

[42]. John F. Haught. The Cosmic Adventure: Science, Religion and the Quest for Purpose.( New York/Ramsey: Paulist Press, 1984), p.4

[43]. John F. Haught. God after  Darwin A Theology of Evolutin (USA: Westview Press, 2000), p.111.

[44]. Richard Dawkins. The Blind Watchmaker. (USA: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996), p. 21.

[45]. George F. R. Ellis, “The Thinking Underlying the New ‘Scientific’Worldviews,” dalam ed. Robert John Russel et al, Evolutionary and Molecular Biology (USA: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1998), p. 266.

[46]. Ibid, p. 258.

[47]. John F. Haught. Science and Religion.(New York: Paulist Press, 1995), p.17.

[48]. John F. Haugt, When Science Meets Religion, p. 54

[49]. Mehdi Golshani, Sacred Science vs Islamic Science, 2005. p. 82

[50]. Ibid, p.78

[51]. Stephen J. Wyjkstra, “Should Woldview Shape Science? Toward an Integrationist Account of Scientific Theorizing,” On Jitse M. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith and Science, (USA: University Press of America, 1996), h.126.

[52]. Zainal Abidin Bagir, “Bagaimana ‘Mengintegrasikan’ Ilmu dan Agama?, ” on Zainal Abidin Bagir (ed.), Integrasi Ilmu dan Agama (Bandung: Mizan, 2005), p.23.

[53]. Azyumardi Azra. Pendidikan Islam, Tradisi dan Modernitas Menuju Milenium Baru. Logos: Jakarta. In 2000. p.51. According to him, there are two strategic roles of Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia. First, organizational structural role. This role serves to form and create cadres of futuristic academic intellectual Muslims that are expected to be a powerhouse of Indonesian Islamic thought renewal to the direction of modernization of Islamic education infrastructure devices in society. Second, socio-cultural role. This role by Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) mediated through devotion movement and social research involving various levels of society.

[54]. If it will not be done, Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) in Indonesia is not only going to be a 'loser' from competition of the higher education world generally and the West, but more than that its existence is only seen as 'cheerleaders', where Imam Zuhdi, described it as ‘Cultural stagnation’ that must be cut down because it had been killed 'the spirit of the glory of Islamic civilization' in the world. Look in his book, Perguruan Tinggi Islam di Indonesia: dari Realitas ke Idealitas.. Surabaya: Star Library. 2012. p. 137.

[55]. Ibid. p.72. The phenomenon is seen in the increasing number of acts of violence, crime, deviant behavior carried out by academics at Islamic Higher Education (PTAI) itself. As a consequence of it all, not just Muslims who are skeptic internally to the existence of Islamic Higher Education itself but the other party had a great negative view.