Does god exist? Are men born good or evil? Do we as human beings have free will? Is there chance? They’re all interesting, but ultimately unanswerable questions.
Wednesday night’s lecture, ‘Knowing as Practical in al-Ghazali: Faith and Trust in One God,’ was an intellectual voyage into Islamic theology and philosophy. The lecture, by Notre Dame’s emeritus professor, David Burrell, was enlightening and heart felt. Burrell discussed the works of one of Islamic Civilization’s most revered philosophers, Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad’ al-Ghazali, or simply Al-Ghazali.
Al-Ghazali’s best known work, is ‘Tah’fut al-Fal’sifa’ or in, English, ‘Incoherence of the Philosopher.’ In philosophical terms, the book is a deconstructive polemic, meaning it uses philosophy to challenge philosophy.
The evening’s lecture started with’ a brief background of al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali was a learnt Islamic scholar who’ was born in the year 1058 and died in’ 1111. He was born in Iran, and he lectured in Baghdad, Iraq for a large part of his life. In Baghdad, al-Ghazali’ philosophized, while teaching Islam.
At a certain point in his life, al-Ghazali was disillusioned and plagued’ by some philosophical dilemmas and he couldn’t see himself teaching Islam with this dissonance. So began al-Ghazali’s religious and reclusive journey throughout the middle-east. It was at’ this time that Al-Ghazali made his efforts to settle his troubles and purify his faith.
Burrell said that Al-Ghazali is a ‘talisman for Muslims,’ making him a celebrity, or one that is open to criticism. Burrell also contended that after the passing of al-Ghazali, Islamic science began to fade away.
After the background, Burrell began the lecture and went into al-Ghazali’s work, ‘Incoherence of the Philosopher.’ Al-Ghazalin produced this book’ in order to’ refute philosophers and’ their intentions, not reason itself. It irritated Al-Ghazali that philosophers had convictions such as explaining the universe without recourse to the Qu’ran (the holy book of Islam) or God. This was considered heresy by Al-Ghazali.
Burrell said Al-Ghazali was ‘Skeptical in the intention of philosophy but not the practices of human inquiry.’ This was perhaps the most important point Burrell made about Al-Ghazali’s work. Burrell highlighted his point’ by reading an excerpt about a critique of Al-Ghazali’s ideas by the Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg.
Coincidentally, there were other participants at the lecture who shared the same view or confusion that Weinberg expressed in his critique. Weinberg said Al-Ghazali ‘argued in ‘The Incoherence of the Philosophers’ against the very idea of laws of nature.’ It was this confusion which Burrell sought to clarify.
According to Burrell, Al-Ghazali was a proponent of reason, but repugnant of philosophical intentions. The difference here lay in the application of scientific and philosophical knowledge. For example, the scientific method is absolutely necessary for the advancement of technology, and’ without this method of reason, almost no technological development could come about. Burrell contended that Al-Ghazali in fact appreciated reason because of this.
However, Burrell said Al-Ghazali was critical of unnecessary reason that leads to no ends. An example of this would be a question such as ‘Is there free-will’? This question ties so closely to the question of whether God exists, that contradictions brought about by reasoning are bound to rise.
Constant questioning will lead to constant reasoning, and ultimately reasons run out. This is why Al-Ghazali challenged philosophy: he sought to deconstruct it because it was not practical. Al-Ghazali’s approach was one that advocated practicality, and very importantly faith.
Thus criticism of faith arises. An intense philosopher may view faith as a copping-out of the debate. Al-Ghazali contended the contrary. Burrell had said ‘The test of faith is not how much one knows but how much one trusts.’ It takes an effort to trust.
‘
‘
