Akbar Ganji's article “Soroush and a God That Is but a Name”

Soroush and a God That Is but a Name

Akbar Ganji – A critique of Abdolkarim Soroush's theological views. What Soroush presents is a deeply confused collection of scattered opinions that draw from disparate sources and even lack internal coherence.

Abstract:

In recent years, Abdolkarim Soroush has shown a particular dedication to theology, and has put forward the claim of a radical rethinking of our conception of God, and of God's relationship with humanity and nature. On the whole, three main components can be identified in his theology:

A- Unity of Being: The universe is as thoughts and imaginations in the mind of God, and in another expression, God is identical with the universe and there is not a particle of separation between them.

B- A radically apophatic theology (the formless God): None of the words of our language or the concepts of our perceptual apparatus apply to Him. In particular, attributes that are characteristics of a human "person" cannot, in a literal sense, be attributed to God. God, in the literal sense of the word, neither knows, nor wills, nor creates, nor loves, nor sends down a prophet, nor speaks with humanity, nor hears human prayer, nor answers it.

C- Naturalism: The entire natural world (which also encompasses the human world, including the phenomenon of prophethood) is a closed, self-regulating system, and everything that occurs in the natural world has material and natural causes. A God separate from nature has no action or intervention in nature, from sending rain and creating things to dispatching prophets or performing miracles.

What Soroush presents is a deeply confused collection of scattered opinions that draw from disparate sources and even lack internal coherence. He himself offers different interpretations of the three components above, which are sometimes not even consistent with one another. These components themselves are also (at least according to some interpretations) incompatible with each other. Furthermore, the reasons he provides for these components are usually unsound and sometimes suffer from deep confusion.

Among the conclusions Soroush draws from his theological views is the interpretation of Quranic verses according to the passive voice, which leads to the "de-deification of the Quran." The God that Soroush introduces in this way practically has no role in the spiritual life of humanity nor in the natural world. Soroush's God is nothing more than a name, and for this reason it can be called "Soroush's nominalist God."[1]

1- Introduction

In recent years, Abdolkarim Soroush has shown a particular dedication in various writings and lectures to the issue of our conception of God, and has insisted on the importance of this matter using various expressions. Also, he usually considers the theistic beliefs of the general faithful regarding the God of the sacred texts of the Abrahamic religions to be invalid, vulgar, pastoral, and indefensible, and in response, he endeavors to present another conception of God, His relationship with humanity, and with the natural world. However, what he has put forward in various works on this subject is intensely chaotic, confused, unsubstantiated, and, most importantly, riddled with many internal contradictions. This very fact makes it impossible to provide a coherent and clear account of Soroush's theology. Nevertheless, the present writing attempts to report, analyze, and examine the various parts of his theology (as far as the limits of this writing allow).

By examining a wide range of Soroush's statements, on the whole, three main components can be identified in his theology, which, of course, are presented in an intertwined manner in his discourses (although he himself has never offered this summary in this form):

A- Unity of Being B- A radically apophatic theology (the formless God) C- Naturalism

As we shall see, Soroush himself offers different formulations and interpretations of the aforementioned components, which are sometimes not even consistent with one another. These components themselves are also (at least according to some interpretations) incompatible with each other. Moreover, the reasons he provides for these components, sometimes in passing and sometimes in greater detail, are typically unsound and at times rooted in different foundations, and it is a source of wonder how they are supposed to coexist within a single system. Furthermore, the consequences that Soroush attaches to his theology (or appears to attach to it) are a story unto themselves.

The details of these matters will be presented in the following sections. Here, to begin, I will merely provide a very general picture of Soroush's theology. Soroush is a staunch defender of the personal unity of existence. He calls the metaphysics based on the unity of existence the "metaphysics of union" and contrasts it with the "metaphysics of separation." In his view, the metaphysics of separation is the source of many problems in theology, the only solution to which lies in accepting the unity of existence. Soroush's God is present in all things and fills the entire universe. Indeed, more than that, God is identical with the universe, not that we have two things, one of which fills the other. In his opinion, assuming an iota of separation and distinction between God and the universe is a departure from the truth of monotheism.

On the other hand, Soroush's God is an absolutely formless God. He has no attributes, and the words of our language and the concepts of our perceptual apparatus are incapable of grasping Him. Applying any word or concept to God means casting a form upon Him, whereas He is pure formlessness. In particular, attributes that are characteristics of the human "person" (such as knowledge, will, desire, intention, speech, love, mercy, hearing, anger, purposeful action, etc.) cannot be applied to God in a literal sense. On this basis, Soroush vehemently rejects the idea of a personal God and an anthropomorphic God, considering them false and vulgar. The result is that Soroush's God, in the literal sense of the word, neither knows, nor wills, nor creates, nor loves, nor sends prophets, nor speaks to humans, nor hears human prayer, nor answers it.

Also, in Soroush's view, the entire natural world (which also encompasses the human world) is a closed, self-organizing system, and everything that occurs in the natural world has material and natural causes. From some of Soroush's statements, it appears that nothing outside the natural world can have any effect on its events. Accordingly, a God separate from nature has no action or intervention in nature, from sending rain and creating things to dispatching prophets or performing miracles. Hence, Soroush sometimes suggests that the verses of the Quran should be interpreted in the passive voice. If, for example, we read in the Quran that God sends down rain, that verse should be interpreted by removing "God" and understood as "rain falls." The hypothesis of reading in the passive voice can rightly be called the de-deification of the Quran, which is an inevitable requirement of some of Soroush's theological views. But the God that Soroush introduces in this way practically has no role in the spiritual life of humans or in the natural world. Not even any of the pragmatic functions of faith are consequent upon accepting such a God. Therefore, Soroush's God is nothing more than a name, and for this reason, I call it "Soroush's nominalist God."

This article has five sections. Sections two through four are dedicated to reporting on and examining the three main components of Soroush's theology (namely: the unity of existence, a radically apophatic theology, and naturalism). As mentioned, Soroush presents different accounts for each of these components, which are sometimes incompatible with one another. In sections two through four, I will examine Soroush's reasons for each of these accounts and address some of the consequences that follow from them. The fifth section is the conclusion and summary of the material. In a word, although Soroush claims to undertake a fundamental rethinking of our conception of God and His relation to the universe and humanity, what he has presented is an extremely confused and chaotic collection of scattered opinions that even lack internal coherence.

The text of the article, without the endnotes, is 87 pages, and the reader can simply read that alone. However, if some seek the evidence, indications, and documentation for the text, they can study the article along with its endnotes, which total 262 pages.[2] The endnotes contain many important points that not only affirm the article's claims but are also significant in themselves and useful for specialists and critics in writing many articles. A great deal of time was spent listening to hundreds of hours of Soroush's lectures and lessons, after which the necessary points were transcribed. The transcribed segments were also studied repeatedly so that the components of Soroush's theology could be extracted from them and a structure imposed upon his scattered remarks. The present article has become longer than usual, but there was no avoiding this prolixity in order to provide a relatively comprehensive report on Soroush's theology and a brief examination of it. At the same time, I have refrained from mentioning many other points that could be raised in this context, and in evaluating Soroush's views, I have generally tried to observe brevity and refer the reader to other sources.

.

---

.

[1] My very dear philosopher friend read this article several times and provided much help in writing its final form. At that dear friend's suggestion, the section on the causes that led Soroush toward the transition from a personal God to naturalism was removed to be published as an independent article. The section on the consequences of Soroush's theology, as well as the inconsistencies in his views on these matters, was also heavily condensed.

[2] The complete PDF file of the article "Soroush and a God That Is but a Name"

.

---

.