Islamic Philosophy: Averroes and Al Ghazali on causality
A simple definition of the word causality may be: the principle or relationship between cause and effect, the agency of a cause; the action of a cause in producing its effect. Discussing the nature of causality, however, is far more complicated then the definition implies. What is the cause of a stone falling to the ground when it is thrown? “ Is it the muscular movement of the hand, the law of gravity, the nature of the stone, as opposed for example to a feather, the will of the person who throws it, or the potential in each case that God has endowed them with.”
In this paper I will attempt to analyze and compare the views of two infamous Islamic philosophers, Averroes and Alghazali, on the controversial issues on causality. Aristotle came up with an accepted distinction between four levels of causes: material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. The material cause is what the object is made up of. The formal cause is what makes the object be what it is. The efficient cause is what acts in order to make something exist. And the final cause is why something is what it is and what the end purpose is for a change produced within. In studying philosophy, the efficient cause is the type of cause that lies at the heart of debate on causality. In the above example the efficient cause would be the act of throwing the stone. Averroes and Alghazali have contrasting views on this aspect of causality. In this paper I will offer a short summary of the lives of these two men, discuss their contrasting views on causality, and express my own opinion as well.
Abu’l Waleed Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Rushd, better known as Averroes in the west, was born in 1128 A.D. in Cordova. Averroes received his education in his hometown of Cordova, where he lived a quiet life, spending much of his time studying and reading philosophy and law. An outstanding library of 500,000 books was constructed in Cordova by Al-Hakam nearly two centuries before the birth of Averroes. This loaded compilation of literature laid the foundation of thought for intellectuals like Averroes who spent much of his time reading through them.
The Caliph of Morocco, Abu Yaqub, appointed Averroes as his physician. He continued to be the physician to the son Abu until Averroes’s views on theology and philosophy aggravated the Caliph. Many of his books were burned and he was banished to Lucena. After some time, at the request of several leading scholars, Averroes was forgiven and returned to Morocco in 1198, only to die later that same year.
Averroes is a notorious figure in the history of Islamic philosophy, as well as that of Western European thought. He played a major part in the defense of Greek philosophy in the Islamic world against the attack of the Asharite theologians who were led by Alghazali. In his writings he often discussed the relationship between religion and philosophy, proclaiming that when both are properly understood, there is no incompatibility between them. Averroes contributed to philosophy through his in depth commentaries on Aristotle and through his defense of philosophy in opposition to those who saw philosophy as contrary to Islamic beliefs. Over here in the western part of the world, Averroes was recognized as the commentator of Aristotle as early as the thirteenth century. His works were instrumental in contributing to emergence of the European Renaissance of the fifteenth century.
Abu Hamid Ibn Muhammad Ibn Muhammad al-Tusi al-Shafi’I al-Ghazali was born in Khorasan, Iran, in 1058 A.D. He received his education at the established programs of study at Nishapur and Baghdad. He became an exceptional pupil of religious and philosophical study at the Nizamiyah University of Bagdad, where he would later become a professor. While Alghazali was at the University it was recognized as one the best institutions of learning in the prime era of Muslim history.
He spent a number of years teaching but eventually gave up academics and became a wandering ascetic. For a long time he lived a lonely life, dedicated to contemplation and writing. Alghazali is author to a number of influential books wrote during this period of his life. He died in 1128 A.D. in Bagdad.
The two philosophers have conflicting views on causality and have met head on in literary works as well. Averroes wrote a book ironically entitled The Incoherence of the Incoherence in direct response to Al Ghazali’s book entitled The Incoherence of the Philosophers. The main difference between these two philosophers can be swiftly summed up by saying that for Averroes the model of human knowledge is demonstrative science, where for Al Ghazali, the model of human knowledge is revelation. Al Ghazali’s basic position on causality in the most simply stated form is that God is the cause of everything. He argues that given the occurrences of miracles, and accepting the concept that God can do anything, then no cause other than God can explain its effect. Peter Adamson of The University of Notre Dame describes this concept as such: “Al Ghazali says that if effects are brought about by higher principles, they depend ultimately on God’s will, and God can do anything except the absolute impossible. Therefore, no effect proceeds necessarily from its cause, unless the cause in question is God himself.”
Averroes claims that created things do have natures which lead them to cause their effects. He perceives Al Ghazali’s view to be a denial of causality in itself. And he claims that if Al Ghazali’s principle is accepted then there can be no predetermined knowledge of anything because certain knowledge is the understanding of the thing according to what it is in itself. This is basically saying that causation is connected with our knowledge of the world, and without it our quest for knowledge does not exist. To quote Averroes: “Logic implies the existence of causes and effects, and knowledge of these can only be rendered perfect through knowledge of their causes. Denial of causation implies the denial of knowledge, and the denial of knowledge implies that nothing in this world can really be known, and that what is supposed to be known is nothing but opinion, that neither proof nor definition exists, and that the essential attributes which compose definitions are void.” Averroes argues that the ultimate cause of every phenomenon is God, and he has established a secondary cause for every phenomenon which Al Ghazali would refute. He does believe that God is capable of “divine acts beyond the reach of human intellect” known as miracles.
Al Ghazali argues that such a response as Averroes response is evidence of mental laziness. He points to the fact that humans can still choose between two alternatives which appear to be identical in every aspect except position. Therefore, he argues that if this is the case then God must be the cause in determining the choice of the individual and the outcome of the situation. He gives the example of a man who is starving: “A hungry man is being confronted by only two dates, where he able to take just one. Since they are to all intents and purposes identical, it would seem to follow that if such philosophers are right he must just stand there and starve since there is no difference between them.” Averroes obviously criticizes this analogy. He argues that it is not really a choice between what date to eat but a choice between eating and not eating. Oliver Leaman states that “What Al Ghazali is trying to do is establish some scope for divine action and decision making which represents God as a real agent and not just as a cipher for natural events which would take place anyway.” Averroes argues that “we cannot think of God acting in any different way from that represented in the organization of the world.” This is a reflection of God’s perfect nature.
I believe one could argue this point forever and there is and never will be essentially a correct answer. No one truly knows the extent to which God causes action to occur or if God even has a hand in any actions. Which concepts do you believe in and which theories make the most sense to you? It is all a matter of personal faith and reasoning. It seems to me that Al Ghazali and Averroes offer the views of opposite sides of the spectrum concerning causality, God’s hand in exercising his will, and human’s ability to exercise their free will. From Al Ghazali’s point of view God seems to possess free will but humans have no free will. From Averroes point of view God seems to have no free will beyond the creation of the universe and humans posses all free will. I like to think that the truth lies somewhere in between. I believe God gave humans the ability to make choices and he exercises his own free will in certain situations. This is just my own personal belief not necessarily the truth, I am aware and content with that. Why bother arguing and trying to prove something that will never be resolved?
