In this essay, first, I concentrate on the issue of miracle, divine action and divine interventionaccording to Enlightenment thinkers. Liberal teologians such as Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976),after Laplacian determinist metaphysics was added to the Newtonian mechanics, found thatdivine action in the world is contrary to the necessity of natural laws, i.e., to their beingsecientific and they defended a semi-deist view of “hand-off theology.” Many moderntheologians defended outdated Laplacian determinist metaphysics for the sake of complyingwith scientific standards. Then, I discuss famous causality debate between al-Ghazali and IbnRushd in the light of the divine action and the New Scientific Picture that is intensivelydebated in the contemporary philosophy of religion. Here, contrary to the claim of Ibn Rushd, Iargue that if quantum mechanics is correct, then al-Ghazali do not uproot science and his viewthat causality is contingent is more scientific and more modern than that of Ibn Rushd'sposition. Finally, I point out that outside of the theological project of al-Ghazali, in hisepistemological project, al-Ghazali believes that natural laws are certain and I argue that hefollows a middle way in this regard.

In this essay, first, I concentrate on the issue of miracle, divine action and divine interventionaccording to Enlightenment thinkers. Liberal teologians such as Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976),after Laplacian determinist metaphysics was added to the Newtonian mechanics, found thatdivine action in the world is contrary to the necessity of natural laws, i.e., to their beingsecientific and they defended a semi-deist view of “hand-off theology.” Many moderntheologians defended outdated Laplacian determinist metaphysics for the sake of complyingwith scientific standards. Then, I discuss famous causality debate between al-Ghazali and IbnRushd in the light of the divine action and the New Scientific Picture that is intensivelydebated in the contemporary philosophy of religion. Here, contrary to the claim of Ibn Rushd, Iargue that if quantum mechanics is correct, then al-Ghazali do not uproot science and his viewthat causality is contingent is more scientific and more modern than that of Ibn Rushd'sposition. Finally, I point out that outside of the theological project of al-Ghazali, in hisepistemological project, al-Ghazali believes that natural laws are certain and I argue that hefollows a middle way in this regard.