All Islamic Sects Subscribe to Averroism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Geremia

Guest
Do all modern Islamic sects subscribe to Averroism, especially the idea of “double-truth,” i.e., that religious and scientific truths can be different and even contradictory? Averroism is a very dangerous philosophy, so much so that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas (“On the Unity of the Intellect Against the Averroists”) to counter it.
 
Muslims believe the Qu’ran is without error and some of them bend science - thereby making it pseudoscience - to prove the Qu’ran. Examples:
  • The Qu’ran states there is fire under the water. Some Muslims point to the hot gas at the bottom of the ocean. But hot gas isn’t the same as fire.
  • The Qu’ran states that sperm dosen’t come from the testicles. Some Muslims point to urine in the kidney. But sperm dosen’t come from the kidney.
  • The Qu’ran states the Sun revovles around the Earth. Some Muslims point to inaccurate scientific studies. But it is beyond a doubt that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
When a Muslim who uses pseudoscience is disproven, he will give more pseudoscience to prove his claim. When that fails, he will declare new scientific discoveries to be false and the Qu’ran to be true. This is similar to how some Christians regard fossils as false and the creation stories in Genesis to be literal discriptions of how God created the world.

When confronted with Qu’ran passages that clearly contradict science and history, the Muslim will use a fallacy, such as the fallacy that the Qu’ran is only in Arabic and those who read translations of the Qu’ran are ignorant of the Qu’ran because it is not Arabic. More often than not, though, the Muslim himself has not read the Qu’ran, and even more often, he reads translations to understand the Qu’ran.
 
Eucharisted said:
Muslims believe the Qu’ran is without error and some of them bend science - thereby making it pseudoscience - to prove the Qu’ran. Examples:
  • The Qu’ran states there is fire under the water. Some Muslims point to the hot gas at the bottom of the ocean. But hot gas isn’t the same as fire.
  • The Qu’ran states that sperm dosen’t come from the testicles. Some Muslims point to urine in the kidney. But sperm dosen’t come from the kidney.
  • The Qu’ran states the Sun revovles around the Earth. Some Muslims point to inaccurate scientific studies. But it is beyond a doubt that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
When a Muslim who uses pseudoscience is disproven, he will give more pseudoscience to prove his claim. When that fails, he will declare new scientific discoveries to be false and the Qu’ran to be true. This is similar to how some Christians regard fossils as false and the creation stories in Genesis to be literal discriptions of how God created the world.

When confronted with Qu’ran passages that clearly contradict science and history, the Muslim will use a fallacy, such as the fallacy that the Qu’ran is only in Arabic and those who read translations of the Qu’ran are ignorant of the Qu’ran because it is not Arabic. More often than not, though, the Muslim himself has not read the Qu’ran, and even more often, he reads translations to understand the Qu’ran.
Click to expand...
Well Nick 👍 you covered it all in a nutshell… 😃
 
Eucharisted said:
Muslims believe the Qu’ran is without error and some of them bend science - thereby making it pseudoscience - to prove the Qu’ran.
Click to expand...
My question is not about the Koran. I was wondering if Averroism is the basis of Islamic philosophy like Thomism is the basis of Catholic philosophy.
 
Geremia said:
My question is not about the Koran. I was wondering if Averroism is the basis of Islamic philosophy like Thomism is the basis of Catholic philosophy.
Click to expand...
Ohhh, Islamic philosophy. I thought you meant Islam in general. Yes, some Islamic philosophies believe in double truth.
 
Eucharisted said:
Ohhh, Islamic philosophy. I thought you meant Islam in general. Yes, some Islamic philosophies believe in double truth.
Click to expand...
But must you believe in the “double-truth” to be a Muslim? That is really my question.
 
Geremia said:
Do all modern Islamic sects subscribe to Averroism,
Click to expand...
I don’t think any Islamic “sects” do. As I understand it, Averroes’ influence is almost solely confined to the West. I don’t think his ideas had much long-term resonance within the Islamic world. I may be overstating this, but it’s certainly not true that his ideas are mainstream, let alone a mandatory part of Islam.

I am also not sure that Averroes actually taught “double truth.” That’s one of those things that many people have been accused of teaching, but when scholars actually look at it they often find that something different is going on.

The Islamic equivalent to Aquinas, insofar as there is one, would be not Averroes but al-Ghazzali. David Burrell has done quite a bit of work comparing Aquinas with both al-Ghazzali and the Jewish philosopher Maimonides.

What gave you the impression that Averroes was the Islamic equivalent of Aquinas?

Edwin
 
Eucharisted said:
  • The Qu’ran states there is fire under the water. Some Muslims point to the hot gas at the bottom of the ocean. But hot gas isn’t the same as fire.
Click to expand...
Where does it say this? Proove it…dont just say it
Eucharisted said:
  • The Qu’ran states that sperm dosen’t come from the testicles. Some Muslims point to urine in the kidney. But sperm dosen’t come from the kidney.
Click to expand...
Where?
Eucharisted said:
  • The Qu’ran states the Sun revovles around the Earth. Some Muslims point to inaccurate scientific studies. But it is beyond a doubt that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Click to expand...
Where?
 
Geremia said:
They both deal with the question of the relationship between faith and reason.
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty slim basis on which to leap to such a huge conclusion, don’t you think? Lots of medieval philosophers dealt with the relationship between faith and reason.

Edwin
 
Geremia said:
Disprove it, then.
Click to expand...
What on earth is that supposed to mean?

There’s nothing to disprove. You are the one making the claim, so you have to come up with evidence. You don’t have any. That should be the end of the discussion.

Edwin
 
Christos said:
Where does it say this? Proove it…dont just say it

Where?

Where?
Click to expand...
In regards to the sun revolving around the earth, he may be referring to this passage:

The sun and the moon follow courses (exactly) computed [S. 55:5; Yusuf Ali]

The sun doesn’t follow a course - it stays in place, and the planets revolve around it. I could be wrong about the citation. I’ll let Eucharisted develop it more.
 
Eucharisted has mis-interpretted Quran in various ways. Quran does not say that:
  1. Sun revolves around the earth.
  2. Sun is stationary, as was believed by most scientists for many centuries.
Quran says “Wa Ashams u Tajri li Mustaqarr ilahah…” The Sun is moving towards its ordained (temporary)station…" Al-Quran 36:38.

That means the Sun is not stationary but it is moving.

The Quran also states that all heavenly bodies are moving in their orbits…
“All are floating in their orbits.” Al-Quran 36:40.

I would advise the members to read the book “Bible, Science and Quran” by Maurice Bucaile (?), the Frenchman who explained many verses of the Quran excellently.

I am writing this just to counter balance the affect created by the post of eucharisted. Otherwise all this may be off topic.

We Muslims believe Science to be the “Work of God” and the Quran is the “Word of God.” There cannot be any difference in the word of God and work of God. That French writer has proved by examples that there is nothing un-scientific in the Quran.
 
The problem with reading Islamic texts in regards to their idea of science is that they are trying to prove that the koran is correct instead of finding out a scientific fact.

I did not find any true scientific fact in the koran. I did find a lot of warping, or maybe you could say wraping, some sort of holiness around a lot of bad things though.
 
It can be safely said that xians do not follow averroism. Xianty teaches that sun goes around the earth, and sure enough they burnt Bruno, imprisoned Gallileo.

Gen teaches that world is only 6000 years old, and xians go all out to “prove” it. They do not bend sceice, they deny it outright. Hmmm
 
rcscwc said:
It can be safely said that xians do not follow averroism. Xianty teaches that sun goes around the earth, and sure enough they burnt Bruno, imprisoned Gallileo.
Click to expand...
This is not a reason why Christians do not subscribe to Averroism.
rcscwc said:
Gen teaches that world is only 6000 years old, and xians go all out to “prove” it. They do not bend sceice, they deny it outright. Hmmm
Click to expand...
I think you are making a generalization. Many Protestants do, but true Christians (i.e., Catholics) do not. True Christians are pro-science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top