[ppi] [ppiindia] Re: ilmu dan agama (was: Kejayaan Negara Islam)

  • From: "Lina Dahlan" <linadahlan@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: ppiindia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 03:03:13 -0000

** Mailing List|Milis Nasional Indonesia PPI-India **

Sayangnya Bucaille bukan ahli filsafat. Saya kira Spinoza bisa kita=20
bandingkan dengan ahli fisafat:  al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina dan=20
Ibn Rusyd atau Al-Ghazali. Atau yang lebih pas lagi di filsafat=20
moderen ini adalah Fuad Zakariya

Bucaille ahli bedah dan ahli biologi. Dia menyatukan ilmunya dengan=20
agama, and bravo!!!...(ilmu yang haq akan bertemu dgn agama yg haq).=20
Ini dalam konteks ilmu dan agama. Filsafat Arab Modernpun telah=20
menyimpulkan demikian: Agama manusia yang agung adalah sains.=20
Kelebihannya dari agama-agama lain adalah bahwa sains mengajarkan=20
manusia apa yang diajarkan agama, tetapi lebih dari itu, sains tidak=20
pernah memberi larangan pada manusia atau aturan-aturan yang=20
membelenggu kebebasan manusia. Agama yang benar adalah sains yang=20
benar.(Shibli Shumayl, Falsafah Nusyi' wa al-Irttiqa', hal. 30;=20
dalam Dr. Syukri Najjar, hal. 120.). Filsafat Shumayl ini=20
digolongkan sbg filsafat materilialisme (Gol filsafat lainnya:=20
rasionalisme dan spiritualisme).

Nah pada filsafat Rasionalisme inilah tempat dimana ahli filsafat=20
membicarakan bidang supra natural termasuk soal ketuhanan. Mereka=20
mencoba membuktikan bahwa daya rasional yang dapat menangkap makna-
makna abstrak, dan dari makna-makna itu tersusun hukum-hukum dan=20
aturan-aturan yang dengannya persoalan-persoalan metafisis dapat=20
dipahami secara sistematis. Namun kembali kepada konsep Trinitas,=20
apakah konsep ini dapat dimasukkan kedalam filsafat ini? Kalau=20
melihat pendapat mbah sebelumnya, tak dapat pula dimasukkan kedalam=20
filsafat ini. Entah dimana tempatnya konsep ini dalam ilmu?

Sedang dalam konteks agama dan agama, yang bisa bergandengan adalah=20
manusia-manusia penganut agama tsb. Akidah tak akan pernah bisa=20
bergandengan. Mungkin Umat Kristen bisa menerima konsep Tauhid, tapi=20
umat Islam tak akan bisa menerima konsep Trinitas. Tapi...kita,=20
manusia, bisa bergandengan tangan.

Saya tertarik dengan pendapat yang mengatakan bahwa ilmu dan agama=20
bagaikan air dan minyak. Namun saya yakin pendapat ini nantipun akan=20
sirna. Sayapun teringat pendapat seseorang mengatakan: umat Islam=20
akan tertinggal bila meninggalkan AlQur'an, umat Kristen akan maju=20
bila meninggalkan Bible (ini tentu dalam konteks ilmu dan agama).


--- In ppiindia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "RM Danardono HADINOTO"=20
<rm_danardono@xxxx> wrote:
> --- In ppiindia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Lina Dahlan" <linadahlan@xxxx>=20
> wrote:
> Ilmu dan Agama akan datang jalan beriringan bahkan bergandengan=20
> tangan. Contohnya, apa yang  telah dilakukan oleh Dr.Maurice=20
> ------------------------
> DH: Mungkin, kalau daya bathiniah manusia sudah begitu berkembang,=20
> akan kita lihat, bahwa ilmu dan agama menuju satu titik yang satu.=20
> Mbak kan juga bisa gandengan dengan seorang yang agamanya lain,=20
> satu dalam paham kan? Misalnya sama sama menemukan suatu theori=20
> Fisika atau Biologi. Gak perlu harus bertentangan..
> Mbak sebut Bucaille. Ada juga akhli falsafah yang namanya Spinoza,=20
> yang mempunyai gambaran lain mengenai keilahian. Coba kita baca:
> Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)
> Baruch Spinoza was one of the great philosophers of the age of=20
> Rationalism and a major influence thereafter, as on,=20
> both of the bitter enemies Arthur Schopenhauer and G.W.F. Hegel.=20
> a Portuguese Jewish family that had fled to the relative tolerance=20
> the Netherlands, one of the most famous things about Spinoza was=20
> expulsion from the Dutch Jewish community. This is often called=20
> an "excommunication," though, as I used to have a high school=20
> protest, there is really no such thing as "excommunication" in=20
> Judaism. Nevertheless, Spinoza was expelled from the Jewish=20
> and anathematized. Although he is today recognized as one of the=20
> greatest Jewish philosophers ever, and the chief Rabbis of Israel=20
> have been petitioned to formally lift the curse upon him, this has=20
> not happened:  Spinoza remains a controversial person in Judaism,=20
> very much the same reasons that led to his expulsion in the first=20
> place. Spinoza's God is not the God of Abraham and Isaac, not a=20
> personal God at all, and his system provides no reason for the=20
> revelatory status of the Bible or the practice of Judaism, or of=20
> religion, for that matter.=20
> Spinoza's alienation from his community is reflected in an=20
> alternative version of his name. "Baruch" in Hebrew (b=E2r=FBkh)=20
> means "Blessed"; but Spinoza began using the name "Benedict,"=20
> in Latin (Benedictus) would mean "spoken well of" or "praised."=20
> reflects the circumstance that Spinoza, with whom Jews were=20
> to associate, inevitably found friendship with Christians instead.=20
> Nor was he unsympathetic with Christianity. However, there never=20
> any chance of Spinoza adhering to Christianity as a religion=20
> than Judaism. Spinoza's sympathy for Christianity, like Thomas=20
> Jefferson's, was entirely for the moral teachings of Jesus, not=20
> the theology, Christology, or the promise of the means of=20
> Like Jefferson, again, Spinoza was a kind of Unitarian, for whom=20
> purely religious aspects of the religions were nearly meaningless.=20
> Although his major works went unpublished in his lifetime, Spinoza=20
> did acquire concerned friends and some measure of favorable=20
> reputation. He had made a living for a while by grinding lenses,=20
> where the dust had damaged his lungs. The pension that his friends=20
> later obtained for him thus did not prevent him from dying at a=20
> tragically young age of 45. His chance for an established academic=20
> career, with an offer from a German university, was rejected,=20
> naturally, because of the confessional conformity that would have=20
> been required. Spinoza's life, consequently, though not=20
> horrible, seems on the whole sad, isolated, and blighted.=20
> Besides tragedy, Spinoza's life and thought is most noteworthy for=20
> paradox. No one would ever have thought to call Thomas=20
Jefferson "the=20
> God intoxicated man"; but although honoring, apparently, the same=20
> sort of rationalized, secularized, and impersonal Deity, this is=20
> precisely what Spinoza has been called. How does one, indeed,=20
> become "intoxicated" with such a God? Since Spinoza explicitly=20
> identifies his God with Nature, it doesn't even seem to be a God=20
> all. How about "the Nature intoxicated man"? Spinoza today is=20
> cited by people who advocate a reductionistic scientism but who=20
> willing to retain some traditional terminology, so that the=20
> term "God" adds nothing to the very same natural world described=20
> science. This overlooks a great deal of Spinoza's metaphysics, but=20
> the real challenge is how Spinoza's God, even properly conceived,=20
> would provide any of the solace, comfort, and meaning of=20
> religion to someone like Spinoza. Exactly what was the emotional=20
> of Spinoza's God on him?=20
> We find the answer to this question in the realization that=20
> is not entirely a modern thinker and that his God in fact has=20
> antecedents in the Middle Ages. It is too easy to get carried away=20
> with the evident conformity of Spinoza's system to the=20
> of science and overlook the foot that it still has planted firmly=20
> Mediaeval Jewish mysticism. Mediaeval Jewish philosophy, in fact,=20
> closely allied to the Neoplatonic philosophical tradition of Late=20
> Antiquity, as this had been taken up and developed during the=20
> intellectual flowering of Isl=E2m in the 9th century. The details of=20
> Spinoza's metaphysics, ironically but significantly, share much=20
> with Isl=E2mic theology that with that of either Judaism or=20
> Christianity. It is not clear that Spinoza was even aware of this=20
> that "Benedict" would be a better translation of=20
> Muh.ammad, "Praised," than of "Baruch"), but it could even be said=20
> be the result of a similar emphasis on the uniqueness and power of=20
> God.=20
> Mediaeval Jewish philosophy reached its height in Spain with Moses=20
> Maimonides (1135-1204) and Moses Nahmanides (1194-1270), as=20
> Jewish mysticism reached its height with the Zohar of the Spanish=20
> Moses ben Shem Tov. Although more rationalistic than Nahmanides,=20
> Maimonides, one of the greatest philosophers of the Middle Ages,=20
> nevertheless in the Neoplatonic tradition that had originally=20
> both considerable rationalism and mysticism, i.e. the belief in=20
> possibility of personal knowledge, even union, with God and the=20
> notion that "religious" truths are often really rational truths=20
> packaged in a way comprehensible to the masses. Such views are the=20
> most plainly and accessibly stated in Lenn Goodman's translation=20
> the book of the Spanish Isl=E2mic philosopher Ibn Tufayl, Hayy Ibn=20
> Yaqzan. Isl=E2mic philosophers eventually got in trouble for such=20
> ideas. Jewish philosophers were less likely to get in trouble with=20
> the authorities, until, that is, Spinoza.=20
> We can gather how this works in Spinoza by examing the details of=20
> metaphysics, as found in Book I of his postumously published=20
> The fundamental thing to keep in mind when thinking about Spinoza=20
> one simple, striking, and paradoxical proposition:  God is the=20
> thing that exists. Although a relatively unfamiliar notion in=20
> philosophy and religion, this is a venerable position in India,=20
> Spinoza's theory can be classified as a version of "qualified=20
> Ved=E2nta," where everything that we ordinarily think of as=20
> does exist as a part of God. It is also noteworthy that the Jewish-
> Isl=E2mic Mediaeval mystical tradition also approached this. L.H.=20
> Grunebaum says of the Sufis, the Islamic mystics, "The mere=20
> attribution of reality to any entity besides the One is=20
> [Medieval Islam, University of Chicago, 1946, 1969, p. 133].=20
> In terms of modern philosophy, we have the term "pantheism," that=20
> is everything; but this can convey the wrong idea. It is not that=20
> is everything, as though everything exists individually and is=20
> somehow God, but that nothing exists independently except God and=20
> that the "everything" we ordinarily think of is a feature of God.=20
> Another term occasionally used for Spinoza is "panentheism," that=20
> is "in" everything; but this is even more deceptive, since it=20
> it seem like God is a feature of things, rather than the other way=20
> around.=20
> The way that Spinoza argues it is that there is only one=20
> and then that there is only one individual of that substance. In=20
> tradition of Anselm and Descartes, God is a "Necessary Being," who=20
> cannot possibly not exist. Existence is part of his essence, and=20
> cannot be without it. But existence is not the entire essence of=20
> Instead, the one substance is characterized by an infinite number=20
> attributes. Besides existence, we are only aware of two of these:=20=20
> thought and extension. Thus, where Descartes had seen thought as=20
> unique essence of the substance soul, and extension as the unique=20
> essence of the substance matter, Spinoza abolished this dualism,=20
> the paradoxes it generated. Thought and extension are just two,=20
> of an infinite number of, facets of Being. A reductionistic=20
> that wants to claim Spinoza as one of its own typically overlooks=20
> this aspect of the theory:  Spinoza's God thinks, and also is or=20
> many other things that are beyond our reckoning and comprehension.=20
> Thus, although Spinoza was condemned by his community for the=20
> of saying that God has a body (denying the transcendence of God=20
> common to Judaism, Christianity, and Isl=E2m), God is nevertheless=20
> more, indeed infinitely more, than a body.
> As God is eternal and infinite, so are his attributes eternal and=20
> infinite. The things we see that are transient and finite are the=20
> temporary modifications, or "modes," of the attributes. This gives=20
> the same relationship between things and the attributes as=20
> had between individual bodies and thoughts and their substances. A=20
> material thing is a piece of space itself (space is not the=20
> but actually matter), the way an individual wave is identifiable=20
> the ocean but does not exist apart from the water that it consists=20
> of. In the same way a specific thought is a temporary distrurbance=20
> the attribute (like the Cartesian substance) of thought -- or, we=20
> might say, of consciousness. The wave metaphor is apt:  Our=20
> is a ripple on the surface of God.=20
> The structure of substance, attribute, and mode is the foundation=20
> Spinoza's metaphysics. But there is another distinction that cuts=20
> across this, the difference between natura naturans and natura=20
> naturata. Natura is simply the Latin word "nature," and what=20
> has done is add participle endings to that noun. Naturans is=20
> thus "nature" plus the active participle ending, which is "-ing"=20
> English; so "Natura Naturans" is "Nature Naturing." Naturata=20
> is "nature" plus the past passive participle ending, which is "-
> in English; so "Natura Naturata" is "Nature Natured." This gives=20
us a=20
> contrast between what is creating and what is created. What is=20
> creating is the eternal existance and nature of God. What is=20
> are the modifications that we see around us as transient things.=20
> distinction cuts across the nature of the attributes themselves,=20
> since there is an eternal and unchanging aspect to each, i.e.=20
> itself or consciousness itself, and a transient and changing=20
> i.e material objects in space or specific thoughts in=20
> At the same time, there is nothing changing about substance as=20
> or unchanging about the modes as such.=20
> While for Spinoza all is God and all is Nature, the active/passive=20
> dualism enables us to restore, if we wish, something more like the=20
> traditional terms. Natura Naturans is the most God-like side of=20
> eternal, unchanging, and invisible, while Natura Naturata is the=20
> Nature-like side of God, transient, changing, and visible. When=20
> Buddhism says that there is no God, it means that there is no=20
> substantive, eternal, unchanging, invisible, and creative side to=20
> reality. One of Spinoza's principal metaphysical categories,=20
> substance, is explicitly rejected by Buddhism. This is revealing,=20
> since it shows us how much there is to Spinoza's metaphysics and=20
> Spinoza's conception of God that would not have to be accepted,=20
> whether we are comparing it with Buddhism or, more importantly,=20
> a reductionistic scientism.=20
> How does Natura Naturans do the creating? By necessity, the=20
> of God's own nature. Spinoza's God does not make choices, does not=20
> really have a will -- which would imply deliberation or=20
> Spinoza's God is perfect, which means everything is as it must be=20
> cannot be otherwise. God's eternal nature necessitates the things=20
> that happen, which happen just as they must and cannot happen=20
> otherwise. This all follows from the premise of God's perfection.=20
> is deterministic. Chance or randomness would be an imperfection.=20
> Since only God exists, it is also true that God causes everything=20
> happen that does happen. This is the "Occasionalism" developed by=20
> Cartesian Malbranche, that the only cause of anything is God=20
> but determinism and occasionalism are also characteristic of=20
> theology, especially that of al-'Ash'ar=EE (873-935) and of the=20
> philosopher al-Ghaz=E2l=EE (1059-1111). This is Spinoza at his most=20
> Isl=E2mic. However, Spinoza goes a bit further. His God does nothing=20
> for any purpose. There are no ends or "final causes" in Spinoza.=20
> would be an insult to God's perfection to imagine that he does=20
> to bring about some end, which would mean to make things better or=20
> bring into existence something that doesn't exist already but=20
> Things are already perfect, and everything that will ever exist=20
> already exists, since God (we recall) is the only thing that=20
> The purpose of mystical rapture is often not just to see God or=20
> God directly, but to become one with God through complete loss of=20
> self. This is what we often see in Isl=E2mic mysticism, S=FBfism, but=20
> also in India, where the self can ultimately be identical=20
> (advaita, "non-dual") with Brahman. In Spinoza, indeed, there is=20
> independent substantial self. The Qur'=E2n says that God is as close=20
> us as the juggular vein, but Spinoza goes rather further than=20
> Everything that we are is just a modification of an attribute of=20
> just a small and transient part of the existence of God. We are=20
> absolutely nothing apart from God. This gives a considerably=20
> impression that we might think from the notion of=20
the "intellectual=20
> love of God" that Spinoza is often said to recommend. To really=20
> an absolute absorption into God and abolition of self=20
> (fan=E2', "extinction" in Arabic) would be a mystical rapture=20
> This may be the key to the emotional pull of Spinoza's theory for=20
> him:  It would be a consolation of religion indeed for him to lose=20
> all sense that his life, circumstances, and misfortunes are of=20
> than the most trivial consequence. Sub specie aeternitatis, from=20
> viewpoint of eternity, nothing imperfect ever happens, and we can=20
> imagine Spinoza transported right out of his own rather sad and=20
> solitary existence into the comforting companionship of God.=20
> This is the key to Spinoza's paradoxical and even disturbing view=20
> that things like right and wrong, good and evil, do not exist for=20
> God. Things only appear right or wrong, good or evil, to a self,=20
> the self does not have substantial existence. Spinoza rather=20
> disputes the relevance of this to God, in whom all is perfect. It=20
> only our selfishness that generates these dichotomies. However, we=20
> also might say that it is selfishness that results in wrongs and=20
> evils as matters of action, since people do bad things expecting=20
> personal benefit from them. It would not occur to someone without=20
> sense of self to be harming others for personal gain. This is an=20
> where Spinoza is appealing to Schopenhauer, who sees selflessness=20
> the motive for good and noble action, and who sees the denial of=20
> as the basis of all holiness and emancipation from the Will. But=20
> where Schopenhauer would see holy selflessness as freedom from the=20
> thing-in-itself as Will, Spinoza would see it as freeing us from=20
> transient and the individual to become one with God. Where=20
> Schopenhauer, a determinist also, saw the denial of the Will as=20
> only truly free action available to us, the corresponding free=20
> for Spinoza, as we might interpret him, would be to turn towards=20
> While a deterministic Natura Naturata would be a world safe for=20
> science, it should now be clear that Spinoza's doctrine allows for=20
> the solace of religion by a mystical turn towards something that=20
> invisible to science, the eternal and unchanging Natura Naturans,=20
> infinite essence and existence of God. This is more than enough to=20
> enable us to understand Spinoza as the "God intoxicated man,"=20
> convictions got him through the tauma of rejection by his own=20
> and a brief life when it was not even safe to openly publish his=20
> views. This all qualifies him, in Schopenhauer's terms, as a=20
Saint --=20
> someone who is no longer troubled by the misfortunes and ordinary=20
> expectations of life. It also enables us to see Spinoza in his=20
> place in the history of Judaism, in the mystical tradition so=20
> characteristic of the Middle Ages, but sharing rather more with=20
> and Neoplatonism than with Biblical based Judaism or Christianity.=20
> ----------------
> Salam
> danardono

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->=20
Give the gift of life to a sick child.=20
Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.'

Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg=
 Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. www.ppi-india.org
Mohon Perhatian:

1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Lihat arsip sebelumnya, www.ppi-india.da.ru;=20
4. Satu email perhari: ppiindia-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5. No-email/web only: ppiindia-nomail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
6. kembali menerima email: ppiindia-normal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Bagi Anda yang ingin berdiskusi tentang apa saja dg akrab, santai tapi serius 
dan penuh persahabatan dg seluruh masyarakat/mahasiswa Indonesia di luar negeri 
serta tokoh-tokoh intelektual dan pejabat Tanah Air, silahkan bergabung dg 
milis ppiindia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Kirim email kosong ke: 
ppiindia-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx atau kunjungi 

Other related posts: