Science versus Religion: The Influence of European Materialism on Turkish Thought, 1860-1960 Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Serdar Poyraz, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: Carter V. Findley, Advisor Jane Hathaway Alan Beyerchen Copyright By Serdar Poyraz 2010 i Abstract My dissertation, entitled “Science versus Religion: The Influence of European Materialism on Turkish Thought, 1860-1960,” is a radical re-evaluation of the history of secularization in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. I argue that European vulgar materialist ideas put forward by nineteenth-century intellectuals and scientists such as Ludwig Büchner (1824-1899), Karl Vogt (1817-1895) and Jacob Moleschott (1822-1893) affected how Ottoman and Turkish intellectuals thought about religion and society, ultimately paving the way for the radical reforms of Kemal Atatürk and the strict secularism of the early Turkish Republic in the 1930s. In my dissertation, I challenge traditional scholarly accounts of Turkish modernization, notably those of Bernard Lewis and Niyazi Berkes, which portray the process as a Manichean struggle between modernity and tradition resulting in a linear process of secularization. On the basis of extensive research in modern Turkish, Ottoman Turkish and Persian sources, I demonstrate that the ideas of such leading westernizing and secularizing thinkers as Münif Pasha (1830-1910), Beşir Fuad (1852-1887) and Baha Tevfik (1884-1914) who were inspired by European materialism provoked spirited religious, philosophical and literary responses from such conservative anti-materialist thinkers as Şehbenderzade ii Ahmed Hilmi (1865-1914), Said Nursi (1873-1960) and Ahmed Hamdi Tanpınar (1901- 1962). Whereas the westernizers argued for the adoption of western modernity in toto, their critics made a crucial distinction between the “material” and “spiritual” sides of western modernity. Although the critics were eager to adopt the material side of western modernity, including not only the military and economic structures but also the political structures of Europe, they had serious reservations when it came to adopting European ethics and secular European attitudes toward religion. The result was two different and competing approaches to modernity in Turkish intellectual history, accompanied by great social tension, which continues to this day, between those who want to Europeanize entirely and those who want to modernize while preserving what they perceive as the “culturally authentic” spiritual core of their society. iii Dedication Dedicated to the memories of my father and my father-in-law. iv Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor Prof. Carter V. Findley and Prof. Jane Hathaway, who were always generous in their support during the writing process of this dissertation. The final document owes much to their constructive criticisms and suggestions. I would also like to thank numerous staff members working at the National Library in Ankara, Turkey, as well as the Prime Ministerial Archives in Istanbul, Turkey. This dissertation could not be written without their help. Finally, my sincere and special thanks go to my beloved wife Seçil, who has always been kind, understanding and supportive. v Vita 1996..........Samanyolu Private Science High School, Ankara, Turkey 2000..........B.A., International Relations, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey 2003..........M.A., Political Science, Ohio State University 2003-2009.....Graduate Teaching Associate, Dept. of History, Ohio State University 2009-2010.....Visiting Assistant Professor, Dept. of History, Wake Forest University 2010-2011…. Visiting Assistant Professor, Dept. of History, University of Montana Publications Serdar Poyraz, “Turkish-Iranian Relations: A Wider Perspective,” SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research, Policy Brief No: 37, November 2009. Serdar Poyraz, “Thinking about Turkish Modernization: Cemil Meriç on Turkish Language, Culture, and Intellectuals,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 16, No. 3 (2006): 434-445. Serdar Poyraz (ed.), Carter V. Findley, Dünya Tarihinde Türkler (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2006). Serdar Poyraz, “Oyun Üzerine Can Sıkıcı Birkaç Söz” (“A Few Boring Words on the Game”), Birikimler 4 (2000): 86-92. Fields of Study Major Field: History Areas of Specialization: Modern Middle East, Iran and Central Asia, Modern Europe vi Table of Contents Abstract............................................................................................................................ii Dedication........................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgments............................................................................................................v Vita...................................................................................................................................vi Table of Contents.............................................................................................................vii Chapter 1: General Introduction........................................................................................1 Chapter 2: Münif Pasha (1830-1910) and the Introduction of European Materialism into the Ottoman Empire...........................................................................................................25 Chapter 3: Beşir Fuad (1852-1887): Scientific Truth and Poetic Dreams........................54 Chapter 4: Baha Tevfik (1884-1914): Materialism, Philosophy and Ethics.....................84 Chapter 5: Şehbenderzade Ahmed Hilmi (1865-1914): Responding to Materialism as Philosopher and Mystic...................................................................................................127 Chapter 6: Bediüzzaman Said Nursi (1873-1960): Being a Religious Man in a Materialistic World.........................................................................................................161 vii Chapter 7: Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar (1901-1962): Science, Literature History and Cultural Change............................................................................................................................216 Chapter 8: Conclusion.....................................................................................................257 References.......................................................................................................................265 viii Chapter 1: General Introduction Then the doctors will tell us that not only Moses, Mahomet, Christ, Luther, Bunyan and others were mad, but also Frans Hals, Rembrandt, Delacroix, and also all the dear narrow old women like our mother. Ah - that's a serious matter - one might ask these doctors, where then are the sane people? Letter from Vincent Van Gogh to Theo Van Gogh Arles 6 August 1888 At least since the publication of Bernard Lewis’ The Emergence of Modern Turkey, Ottoman and Turkish studies have been obsessed with the idea of an almost Manichean struggle between “modernity” and “tradition”. According to Lewis, “The growth of the sentiment of Turkish identity was connected with the movement away from Islamic practice and tradition, and towards Europe. This began with purely practical short-term measures of reform, intended to accomplish a limited purpose; it developed into a large-scale, deliberate attempt to take a whole nation across the frontier from one civilization to another.”1 One may find the traces of this general idea of a clash between modernity and tradition, to varying degrees, in the works of such luminaries of the field of Turkish and 1 Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), 3. 1 Ottoman studies as Niyazi Berkes and Şerif Mardin as well.2 Needless to say, this assumption of a clash between modernity and tradition was also the backbone of “modernization theory,” which dominated the fields of sociology and political science in the 1960s and, without a doubt, influenced the works of Lewis,3 Berkes and Mardin. Sociologists, such as S.N. Eisenstadt, have argued that the classical theories of modernization linking structural economic variables such as the advent of consumer capitalism and industrialization to a host of socio-political variables (like the advent of democracy, the decline of traditional beliefs and increasing secularization) are exhausted.4 In order to drive his point home, Eisenstadt gives references to the theories of the end of history5 and the clash of civilizations6 in which “western civilization-the seeming epitome of modernity- is confronted by a world in which traditional, fundamentalist, anti-modern, and anti-western civilizations-some (most notably, the Islamic) viewing the West with animus or disdain- are predominant.”7 2 See, for example, Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1964). 3 Honestly speaking, I do not think that Lewis shows any kind of theoretical awareness in his works at all, but there is no doubt that his works should be located within the Zeitgeist provided by modernization theory. 4 S.N. Eisenstadt, “Multiple Modernities,” Daedalus 129, No.1 (2000): 3. 5 Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992). 6 Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World