Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:38:29.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Four conceptions of creatio ex nihilo and the compatibility questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2010

David B. Burrell
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Carlo Cogliati
Affiliation:
Peterhouse, Cambridge
Janet M. Soskice
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
William R. Stoeger
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The notion of creatio ex nihilo has become a doctrine firmly established in the three Abrahamic religions (i.e., Christianity, Judaism and Islam). Almost all groups of Islamic thinkers accept the truth of the createdness (creatio) of the universe, and that it is preceded by its “non-existence” (ex nihilo). However, there is a diversity of opinions as to whether the concept of creatio ex nihilo is compatible with alternative accounts of the origin of the physical world, and this diversity is particularly marked between Islamic philosophers and kalam theologians (Mutakallimun). Three major factors, independently or together, play a fundamental role on how Islamic scholars deal with this very issue: (a) their views of the physical world; (b) their approaches to the divine attributes; and (c) their understandings of the teachings of their religion. The aim of this chapter is to investigate whether four different notions of creatio ex nihilo espoused by different Islamic thinkers are compatible with seven alternative accounts of the origins of the universe (five philosophical/theological doctrines – first level of compatibility; and two possible interpretations of a modern scientific theory – second level of compatibility).

FOUR CONCEPTIONS OF CREATIO EX NIHILO AND THE FIRST LEVEL OF COMPATIBILITY QUESTIONS

To provide an appropriate setting for the debate about creatio ex nihilo (hereafter CEN) and to prevent any confusion it might be useful to classify some of the most important Islamic views on CEN into four conceptions: (a) temporal-historical (TH); (b) essential non-temporal (ENT); (c) objective meta-temporal (OMT); and (d) substantive temporal non-historical (STNH).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fakhr, ad-Din Razi, al-Matalib al-Aliah, 9 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-‘Arabī, 1987), vol. iv, pp. 209–210Google Scholar
Also Nasir, ad-Din Tusi, Tajrid al-Itiqad, with comments by Helli (Qum: Maktab al-I‘lām al-Islāmī, 1986), p. 170.Google Scholar
ash-Shifa: Metaphysics, ed. Anawati, G. C. and Zayid, S. (Cairo: Organisme Général des Imprimeries Gouvernementales, 1960), p. 266.
al-Isharat wa at-Tanbihat, with comments by Tusi, 3 vols. (Tehran: Daftar Nashr al-Kitāb, 1983), vol. iii, p. 76.
at-Ta'liqat, ed. Center of Publication of the Islamic Seminary, 2nd edn. (Qum: The Office of Islamic Propagation of the Islamic Seminary of Qum, 1999), p. 168
Nasir, ad-Din Tusi, Comments on Avicenna's al-Isharat wa at-Tanbihat, 3 vols. (Tehran: Daftar Nashr al-Kitāb, 1983), vol. iii, p. 82.Google Scholar
Muhammad, BaghirMir, Damad, al-Qabasat, ed. Mohaghegh, Mehdi, Isutsu, Toshihiko, Behbahani, A. Musavi and Dibaji, Ibrahim (Tehran: Institute of Islamic Studies, 1977), p. 29.Google Scholar
Muhammad, Sadra, Risalah fi-l Huduth-al-Alam, ed. Mousawiyan, S. H. (Tehran: Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Institute, 1998), p. 16.Google Scholar
Muhammad, Sadra, al-Hikmat al-Muta'aliyah fi'l-Asfar Alaqliyyat al-Arba'ah, 9 vols. (Beirut: Dar Ihya' at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1981)Google Scholar
Gilbert, Ryle, The Concept of Mind (London: Hutchinson, 1949), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
Paul, Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Touchstone, 1992), pp. 48–50.Google Scholar
Stoeger, William R., “Contemporary Cosmology and Its Implications for the Science–Religion Dialogue” in Russell, R. J., Stoeger, W. R. and Coyne, G. (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican Observatory Publications, 1998), pp. 219–247, at p. 222.Google Scholar
George, Coyne, “The Sacred Cows of Religion and Science Meet” in Impey, C. and Petry, C. (eds.), Science and Theology: Ruminations on the Cosmos (Vatican Observatory, 2003), pp. 19–34, at pp. 25–26.Google Scholar
Worthing, Mark W., God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), p. 86.Google Scholar
Ted, Peters, “On Creating the Cosmos” in Russell, R. J., Stoeger, W. R. and Coyne, G. (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican Observatory Publications, 1988), pp. 273–292, at p. 288.Google Scholar
Goodman, Lenn E., “Three Meanings of the Idea of Creation” in Burrell, D. and McGinn, B. (eds.), God and Creation: An Ecumenical Symposium (University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), pp. 85–113, at p. 85.Google Scholar
Barrow, J. and Tipler, F., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 442.Google Scholar
Copan, P. and Craig, W. L., Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), p. 223.Google Scholar
Craig, W. L., “A Criticism of the Cosmological Argument for God's Non-existence” in Craig, W. L. and Smith, Q. (eds.), Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 256–276, at p. 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munitz, Milton K., Cosmic Understanding: Philosophy and Science of the Universe (Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 167, 175.Google Scholar
Stoeger, William R., “Key Developments in Physics Challenging Philosophy and Theology” in Richardson, W. M. and Wildman, W. J. (eds.), Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 183–200, at p. 193.Google Scholar
Michael, Heller, “Cosmological Singularity and the Creation of the Universe,” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 35:3 (2000), pp. 665–685, at p. 670.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×