This is not a technical paper, rather, some ruminations for the sake of intellectual benefit and food for thought.
Theology and Life
Theologians affirm that God possesses the attribute of “life” — that is, God is living. The Qurʿān states:
“Allah – there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence.” (2:225).
However, defining life is quite the challenge. Recognising this difficulty, theologians often resort and rely on the implications and properties of being alive for definition rather than attempting to capture its essence.
For the theologian, to be living means that it is possible that the subject has the capacity to know and act with will. This is because, it is argued, that knowledge and willful action are only possible from a living entity. Inanimate objects such as rocks and grass do not know nor can they act with will.
Consequently, for God, the attribute of life is closely tied to His attributes of Knowledge (or Omniscience) and Power (or Omnipotence). The attribute of knowledge is itself another elusive reality. There is no strict definition of knowledge that is not circular. We may describe knowledge using synonyms, but that does not amount to a true definition. Despite this, we seem to understand the former better. Ourintuitions (such as our consciousness of our own existence) are instances of knowledge that we feel intimately within ourselves. The same, it seems, cannot be said for life. While we know we are alive, we cannot introspectively grasp or interact with our “living-ness” in the same way.
Omniscience and omnipotence are attributes that describe God’s essence, as opposed to attributes such as “Creator,” which describe His actions. They are exclusively manifested when God performs the action that is entailed by the attribute. For example, God is only referred to as “Creator” once He has created; however, His omniscience and omnipotence are independent of any external reality. Whether there is a world or not, God remains omniscient and omnipotent over all things. God by virtue of his essence is omnipotent and omniscient. Glory be to Him.
It follows then that living must also be an attribute of essence. If it is by virtue of life that knowledge and power are made possible, then it is abundantly clear that life itself should be a description for God’s essence.
It is well known in the Imāmī tradition of kalām (theology), that attributes of essence are in unison with the essence itself. A position closely tied to the doctrine of divine simplicity. God is not made of parts nor does He possess attributes as independent entities. His omniscience, omnipotence, and life are not separate realities but rather conceptual distinctions that all point back to His singular, indivisible essence.
By virtue of the fact that God knows, we say He has the attribute of omniscience. By virtue of the fact that God acts as He wishes, we say He has the attribute of omnipotence. Similarly, by virtue of the fact that God knows and acts with will, we attribute Him with Living. But all of these attributes are just different ways of describing the same thing: God (=essence). As it is said: the attributes and the essence differ conceptually but they unite existentially.
To understand this better, consider the following analogy that is often mentioned in textbooks of kalām: a man with respect to his wife is called a husband, with respect to his children a father and with respect to his own parents, a child. Conceptually speaking, “the man” is different to his attributes, and his attributes are also conceptually distinct from one another (“father” is a different concept from “child”), but all of these concepts point to and unite in one being existentially: the singular man that exists in the real world.
Given that life is contingent on the possibility of knowledge and power (to act with will), it follows, without surprise, that life is a higher mode of existence than inanimateness. Loosely speaking, the hierarchy of life increasing in degree is as follows:
Plants[1] -> animals -> humans -> God.
The higher we are in this chain, the more intense “life” manifests itself. I have left out jinn and angels from this hierarchy for the sake of simplicity, but I would imagine jinn are positioned closely to humans.
Does this contingency on knowledge and power imply that the higher one being’s knowledge and power, the higher their intensity of life? I believe this is a sensible assumption to make based on the theological/philosophical framework provided.
Biology and Life
The theologian’s attempt on defining life (as well as that of the philosophers who have similar definitions) made me curious whether modern science has managed to clarify the matter more. In some respects, it has; and in others, it hasn’t.
We find more detail in the scientific literature about the kind of properties that signify a life form. This is natural because biology is the study of life in the material universe, whereas theology is concerned with the notion of life at a scale that can apply to non-material beings too. Therefore, the omission of details in theology to arrive at more general concepts and properties to define life is expected.
Biology contemporary to the authorship of standard textbooks of theology and the conception of these definitions also had more to say about life, such as describing the internal structure of living organisms as signs of life, but theologians intentionally ignored such details as it did not serve their purpose of research. Descriptions of life that entailed biological structures would naturally be useless to a theologian, because God has no such structure. Therefore, it is not that scholars of religion were or are oblivious to the scientific descriptions of the phenomenon of life, rather, they can only borrow from it as far as it extends their objective.
Nonetheless, modern science suffers from the same conundrum that theology confessed to: life is too difficult to define. Theologians generally accept this limitation, mainly owing to the fact that the general trajectory of theology will not be impacted extensively with or without a technical definition. Scientists and in particular biologists, however, find a greater challenge in coming to grips with this cold truth. This is because biology is the study of life, yet no one knows what constitutes life. Some may find it awkward—even embarrassing—that the central concept of their discipline lacks a clear definition.
That said, perhaps this is not an issue unique to biology. Epistemology, the study of knowledge, and ontology, the study of existence, also revolve around concepts that defy strict definition. One might argue that knowledge and existence are too self-evident to require definition. But can the same be said for life? If not, perhaps the difficulty in defining life is indeed more problematic for biology.
Regardless of these philosophical concerns, the debate over defining life persists. One study documented[2] that 123 different attempts have been made at this quest. A popular working definition is one proposed by NASA:
“A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.”[3]
This definition serves NASA’s goal of identifying extraterrestrial life but is not a logically exhaustive definition listing all necessary and sufficient conditions.
The 123 definitions often focus on different differentiæ—distinct properties that distinguish life from non-life—such as: growth, adaptability, response to stimuli, self-sustaining, homeostasis, metabolism, reproduction and many others are candidates for such differentia.
There are five approaches in the space: pragmatism, property listing, family resemblances, reductionism, and skepticism (or stop-wasting-your-time).
Pragmatism or operationalism is at the core of NASA’s attempt. It acknowledges the difficulty of defining life but proposes functional definitions for specific scientific applications.
Property listing: Those adamant about finding a logical definition that includes all the necessary and sufficient properties and conditions are falling in this camp. This is where I believe a good chunk of the 123 definitions fall under.
One Russian scientist by the name of Trifonov[4] tried a more radical and reductionist approach. He attempted to identify the common theme between all the 123 definitions and concluded with: “Life is self‐reproduction with variations”. He won the favour of some and displeased many others.
Owing to the novel ideas of the unique philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, some took on the family resemblance approach. You and your family belong to the same family by virtue of resemblances you have to your parents. Except, one may have the nose of the father, the other the ears of the mother, and finally the third may have the facial structure of one of the parents. Yet it is not the case that all children have something in common. For example, not all of the siblings have the nose of the mother or the eyes of the father. It’s a distribution. But you can still be identified under the same family.
This view holds that life may not have a single defining feature but rather a set of overlapping characteristics, much like members of a family share various traits.[5] My problem with this approach is: in the family example we can refer to the parents as the root of the family, compare and contrast and decide whether a child belongs to the family or not. Who are the parents in the example of life?
I think Carol Cleland in her paper Defining “Life”[6] hits the nail on the head, showcasing the final approach, “stop-wasting-your-time” skepticism. She argues that modern science does not have the right tools to provide a stipulative definition of life. She draws on the historical debate amongst scientists on the definition of water before molecular theory was discovered. Scientists were at each other’s throat on which definition of water was logically coherent and correct. These debates only ended when molecular theory was developed and decreed conclusively that water is H20.
Cleland argues we are in a similar position when it comes to defining life. If indeed there is some unique biological pattern/condition that is characteristic to life (as one expects there to be), we do not have the tools to discover it as of yet.
Final thoughts
We cannot end this piece without mentioning Rūḥ. In our Islamic tradition, the concept of life and rūḥ (spirit) are intimately tied. Rūḥ, broadly speaking, is the life-giving force. Talking about rūḥ in hopes of illuminating life, is like asking a homeless person for money. It is elusive enough for the Qurʿān to follow up its comment on rūh with the humbling reminder: “you have not been given knowledge except a little”. Rūh will need a separate writing.
What continues to puzzle me (and has done so since childhood) is calling God living. Life is a degree or state of being that enables consciousness (omniscience) and autonomous action (omnipotence). God is the most living being.
We are not meant or able to comprehend the essence of God, so it is no surprise that I am puzzled about God being alive. What we know for sure is God is beyond description and these attributes are our best attempts at having some cognition of the Almighty.
“O Allah, increase me in perplexity (wonder) regarding You.” – Attributed to The Prophet Muḥammad (ṣ)
قال النبي صلى اللّٰه عليه و اله سلم اللهم زدني فيك تحيرا
[1] Some classic theologians may oppose to plants having life in that strict definition. Modern ones are accepting.
[2] Trifonov, E. N. (2012). Definition of Life: Navigation through Uncertainties. Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics, 29(4), 647–650. doi:10.1080/073911012010525017
[3] https://science.nasa.gov/universe/search-for-life/life-on-other-planets-what-is-life-and-what-does-it-need/
[4] See (2)
[5] https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-life-its-vast-diversity-defies-easy-definition-20210309/
[6] Cleland, C. E., & Chyba, C. F. (2002). Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 32(4), 387–393. doi:10.1023/a:1020503324273
