On Stefano Bigliardi’s Reading of Hamza Tzortzis’s “The Divine Reality”

Hamza Tzortzis is a British Islamic preacher active in discussions between atheism and religion, particularly Islam. His book, The Divine Reality: God, Islam and the Mirage of Atheism, presents Tzortzis’s arguments. However, Real Sciences is less concerned with religious or ideological debates and instead focuses on the scientific aspects highlighted by Bigliardi in his review of Tzortzis’s work.

The difficulty in addressing this book starts with Tzortzis’s challenge to science, which he argues cannot explain metaphysics. He also relies on “divine revelation” as a source, which science does not recognize, creating a tension in the book’s aim to bridge two distinct viewpoints. Tzortzis suggests that scientific facts and theories are only temporary models and encourages followers to reject them, despite accepting their current functionality.

Bigliardi notes Tzortzis’s frequent claim that science is changeable, citing differences between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics as evidence. Tzortzis sees science as limited, mutable, and uncertain. Yet Bigliardi counters this by pointing out a common contradiction: Tzortzis’s selective reliance on scientific facts to defend religion. How can science be dismissed as uncertain yet be cited to validate religious truths? This selective use of science, also common in “scientific miracles” arguments, is critically flawed, according to Bigliardi. For instance, Tzortzis cites the Qur’an’s compatibility with the Big Bang theory, yet elsewhere devalues science.

Tzortzis labels science as “today’s science,” akin to fashion trends, yet he still uses it to substantiate religious texts when convenient. This inconsistency creates a tense and unproductive relationship with science, Bigliardi argues.

Tzortzis advocates for “accepting scientific facts without believing in them,” advising believers to acknowledge certain scientific truths (such as evolution) for practical purposes, but without believing them if they conflict with religious texts. Bigliardi critiques this approach as impractical, especially for students of biology or physics, as it leads to a superficial acceptance of science without serious engagement. Such a stance could increase resistance to science rather than promote a genuine understanding.

Tzortzis’s conflicted relationship with science is especially apparent in his treatment of evolution. While urging its acceptance as a scientific theory, he simultaneously raises numerous weak arguments against it, often misinterpreting critiques of evolution as rejections of it, even though many scientists refine rather than reject evolutionary theory.

Bigliardi suggests that Tzortzis’s arguments may represent a new phase in the science-religion relationship. However, this phase offers little value to religious adherents who genuinely wish to engage in scientific research. Rather than fostering an enriching dialogue, this approach may lead to a superficial duality that ultimately hampers meaningful integration with scientific ideas.

Paper:

Bigliardi, Stefano. “The Half-Baked Loaf: Reflections on Hamza Andreas Tzortzis’ Discussion of Science in The Divine Reality.” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science (2024).