Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Islam And The Primacy Of Reason

I asked before if there was a place for pure rationalism in Islam and provided an example of one such thinker.

Now, in an article about Islamic Enlightenment we see:

Between 750 and 1050, authors made use of a surprising freedom of thinking in their approach to religions and to the phenomenon of belief. In their analyses, they bowed to the primacy of reason, honoring one of the basic principles of the Enlightenment. This phenomenon took place during a period of effervescence, of intense intellectual exchange, that Islam experienced a little more than a century after its advent, when its followers were seeking to develop a tradition capable of confronting much more sophisticated systems of thought. This was also a time when newcomers to Islam continued to remember theological systems and questions raised by the beliefs that had seen them come into being or evolve (like Judaism, various Christian sects, Manicheism, or Zoroastrianism).

Continue at Eteraz.Org (longish excerpt).

Posted by Ali Eteraz | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks
DanielH (mail):
Well, I still think al-Ghazali is better than al-Razi, at least as a religious thinker. Nor do I see a problem with the doctrine of the "uncreated Qur'an", which is hardly different from the idea expressed in the Gospel of John -- "In the beginning was God; and the Word was with God". To the Asharite school of theology, at least, the eternal Qur'an signifies the uncreated speach, or Word, or God, not the Arabic book that people read and recite. The latter was revealed to Muhammad in response (often) to specific historical contexts. Of course the Arabic revelation is still believed (according to the Asharites) to reflect the eternal Word of God.

Nevertheless, I think it is great that the Mutazilite school and the falsafa are being revived. More than anything, Islamic thought needs to be subjected to rational debate if Muslims want their religion to stay fresh and relevant.
3.30.2007 12:21am
DanielH (mail):
Some of the greatest thought going on in Muslim countries during the Middle Ages was scientific. The work being done was not "preservation" of Greek knowledge, but true original research. The revolution of experimentalism against neo-Platonic rationalism started in Persia, Egypt, and Muslim Spain, with men like the 11th century Ibn al-Haytham, who was the first to prove that light comes from without into the eye. Here is an interesting passage from him:

Truth is sought for itself…[but] the truths are immersed in uncertainties [and the scientific authorities are] not immune from error… Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency. - from Aporias against Ptolemy

Roger Bacon, an Englishman of the 13 century, is another important figure in the history of scientific experiment. He learned most of his optical theories from the books of al-Kindi and Ibn al-Haytham. Here is Bacon on the nature of experimental knowledge:

There are two ways of acquiring knowledge, one through reason, the other by experiment. Argument reaches a conclusion and compels us to admit it, but it neither makes us certain nor so annihilates doubt that the mind rests calm in the intuition of truth, unless it finds this certitude by way of experience. Thus many have arguments toward attainable facts, but because they have not experienced them, they overlook them and neither avoid a harmful nor follow a beneficial course. Even if a man that has never seen fire, proves by good reasoning that fire burns, and devours and destroys things, nevertheless the mind of one hearing his arguments would never be convinced, nor would he avoid fire until he puts his hand or some combustible thing into it in order to prove by experiment what the argument taught. But after the fact of combustion is experienced, the mind is satisfied and lies calm in the certainty of truth. Hence argument is not enough, but experience is. - from Opus Majus
3.30.2007 3:18pm
Account:
Password:
Remember info?
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.

Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.

Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.