index

Taoism

Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:57:19 +0100

East Asian religions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A traditional representation of The Vinegar Tasters, an allegorical image representing Buddhists, Confucianists and Taoists.

In the study of comparative religion, the East Asian religions (also known as Far Eastern religions, Chinese religions, or Taoic religions) form a subset of the Eastern religions. This group includes Caodaism, Chen Tao, Chondogyo, Confucianism, Jeungism, Shinto, Taoism, I-Kuan Tao and elements of Mahayana Buddhism.

These traditions or religious philosophies focus on the East Asian concept of Tao 道 ("The Way"; pinyin dào, Korean do, Japanese tō or dō, Vietnamese đạo).

The place of East Asian religions among major religious groups is comparable to the Abrahamic religions and Indian religions.[1]

Early Chinese philosophies defined Tao and advocated cultivating De in that Tao.[2] Some ancient schools have merged into traditions with different names or are no longer active, such as Mohism (and many others of the Hundred Schools of Thought), while some such as Taoism persist to the modern day. East Asian religion is usually polytheistic or nontheistic, but henotheistic, monotheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic and agnostic varieties exist, inside and outside of Asia. East Asian religions have many Western adherents, though their interpretations may differ significantly from traditional East Asian thought and culture.Contents [hide]
1 Terminology
2 Tao
2.1 De
3 Traditions
3.1 Taoism
3.2 Confucianism
3.2.1 Neo-Confucianism
3.2.2 New Confucianism
3.3 Shinto
3.4 Chan Buddhism
3.5 Chinese Folk Religion
4 Taoism and Confucianism
5 Interaction with Dharmic traditions
6 See also
7 Footnotes and references
8 External links

[edit]
Terminology

Despite a wide variety of terms, the traditions described as "Far Eastern religions", "East Asian religions" or "Chinese religions" are recognized by scholars as a distinct religious family.[3][4]

Syncretism is a common feature of East Asian religions, often making it difficult to recognize individual faiths.[5][6] Further complications arise from the inconsistent use of many terms. "Tao religion" is often used for Taoism itself, especially Tao chiao,[7] as well as being used as an identifying term for Tao-based new religious movements.[8] The term "Far Eastern religion" can be used to refer only to faiths incorporating "Tao", may include Ch'an and Japanese Buddhism, and can even inclusively refer to all Asian religions.[9][10][11] These problems in distinguishing religious practices and with inconsistency in terminology can make discussion of East Asian religions difficult.
[edit]
Tao

The Chinese character for "Tao".
Main article: Tao

Tao can be roughly stated to be the "flow" of the universe, or the force behind the natural order.[12] Believed to be the influence that keeps the universe balanced and ordered, Tao is associated with nature, due to a belief that nature demonstrates the Tao.[13] The flow of qi, as the essential energy of action and existence, is compared to the universal order of Tao. Similar to the negative theology of Western scholars, Tao is compared to what it is not.[14] It is often considered to be the source of both existence and non-existence.[15]
[edit]
De
For more details on this topic, see De (Chinese).

Tao is often associated with "proper" attitude, morality and lifestyle. In practice, the exact meaning of "proper" varies among the East Asian faiths and their branches. This is intimately tied to the complex concept of De (literally, "virtue"). De is the active expression of Tao.[16] Generally, those religions closer to Taoism express this as "integrity" or "wholeness", while those faiths closer to Confucianism express this concept as "morality" or "sound character".[17]
[edit]
Traditions

The three major East Asian traditions are Taoism, Confucianism and Shinto.[18] Buddhism, though it may be classified as a Dharmic tradition, has significant "Taoic" features in East Asia. Mahayana Buddhism is often considered as having joint heritage in Dharma and Tao traditions. The tentative larger classification of Eastern religions avoids this overlap and cross-pollination of "Indian" and "Far Eastern" religious thought, but loses the importance of the distinct unifying doctrines of Tao and Dharma.
[edit]
Taoism
Main article: Taoism

Taoism consists of a variety of related religious and philosophical traditions; categorization of Taoist schools and movements can be very controversial. In general, Taoist propriety and ethics place an emphasis on the unity of the universe, the unity of the material world and the spiritual world, the unity of the past, present and future; Three Jewels of the Tao; love, moderation, humility.[19] Taoist theology focuses on doctrines of wu wei ("non-action"), spontaneity, relativism and emptiness.[20][21]

Most traditional Chinese Taoists are polytheistic, but there are disagreements regarding the proper composition of their pantheon.[22] Popular Taoism typically presents the Jade Emperor as the head deity. Intellectual (or "elite") Taoism usually presents Laozi and the Three Pure Ones at the top of the pantheon.[23] Nature and ancestor spirits are common in popular Taoism, but this sort of shamanism is eschewed for an emphasis on internal alchemy among the "elite" Taoists. Tao itself is rarely an object of worship, being treated more like the Central Asian concept of atman.[24]
[edit]
Confucianism
Main article: Confucianism

Confucian temple in Kaohsiung, Republic of China (Taiwan).

Confucianism is a complex system of moral, social, political, and religious thought, influential in the history of East Asia. It is commonly associated with legalism, but actually rejects legalism for ritualism.[25] It also endorses meritocracy as the ideal of nobility.[26] Confucianism includes a complicated system governing duties and etiquette in relationships. Confucian ethics focus on familial duty, loyalty and humaneness.[27] Confucianism recognizes the existence of animistic spirits, ghosts and deities. It advocates paying them proper respect, but paradoxically also encourages avoiding them.[28] Confucian thought is notable as the framework upon which the syncretic Neo-Confucianism was built.[29]
[edit]
Neo-Confucianism

A bronze statue of Confucius.
Main article: Neo-Confucianism

Neo-Confucianism was deliberately created as a syncretism of Taoism, Confucianism and Chinese Buddhism. It is recognized as being formulated and established during the Song dynasty, but its roots can be traced to scholars of the Tang dynasty. It combined Buddhist religious concepts with Taoist yin yang theory and the I Ching, and placed them within the framework of classic Confucianism.[30]

Despite Neo-Confucianism's incorporation of the "best" elements of Buddhism and Taoism, its apologists still decried both faiths.[31] However, its influence on Chinese society has blurred the distinction between all three faiths, even into modern times. Neo-Confucianism was an officially endorsed faith for over five centuries, deeply influencing all of East Asia.[32]
[edit]
New Confucianism
Main article: New Confucianism This section requires expansion.

New Confucianism is a modernist Confucianism, which accommodates modern science and democratic ideals, while remaining conservative in preserving traditional Neo-Confucianist positions.
[edit]
Shinto

The altar of a Shinto temple.
Main article: Shinto

Shinto is an animistic folk religion from Japan. Shinto literally means "the way of the gods". Shinto and Asian Buddhism are inextricably linked in Japan.[33] Many Japanese Shintoists also identify themselves as Buddhists. Japanese Pure Land Buddhism is deeply tied with the Shinto faith.[34] Shinto practitioners commonly affirm tradition, family, nature, cleanliness and ritual observation as core values.[35] Taoist influence is significant in their beliefs about nature and self-mastery. Ritual cleanliness is a central part of Shinto life.[36] Shrines have a significant place in Shinto, reflecting the animistic veneration of the kami.[37] "Folk", or "popular", Shinto features an emphasis on shamanism, particularly divination, spirit possession and faith healing. "Sect" Shinto is a diverse group including mountain-worshippers and Confucian Shintoists.[38]
[edit]
Chan Buddhism
Main article: Chan Buddhism

Chan Buddhism (more commonly known in the West as Zen Buddhism) is a form of Mahayana Buddhism deeply influenced by Taoism[39] which emphasizes awareness, meditation and direct experience. Chan Buddhism takes a critical view of textual hermeneutics, the limitations of language and dogmatic assertions.[40] Zazen, sitting meditation, is a central practice. Eschewing scriptural study for direct communication, Chan places a high regard for the teacher-disciple relationship.[41] Ideal instructors are lionized in Chan stories. The lineage of a teaching is considered more important than its comparison with a test of orthodoxy.[42] Dialogues and stories called koans are a distinctive feature of Chan Buddhism. Koans often appear paradoxical or meaningless, but they are deployed as vehicles for the transformation of the perspective or consciousness of a disciple.[43]
[edit]
Chinese Folk Religion
Main article: Chinese folk religion This section requires expansion.

Chinese folk religion is a syncretic faith, originating in ancient tribal shamanism, that incorporates elements of Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, ancestor veneration and nature worship. It is historically the main source of Chinese mythology and has co-existed, both alongside and as part of, Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism.
[edit]
Taoism and Confucianism

The terms Tao and De are religious and philosophical terms shared between Taoism and Confucianism.[44] The authorship of the Tao Te Ching is assigned to Laozi, who is traditionally held to have been a teacher of Confucius.[45] However, some scholars believe the Tao Te Ching arose as a reaction to Confucianism.[46] Zhuangzi, reacting to the Confucian-Mohist ethical disputes in his "history of thought", casts Laozi as a prior step to the Mohists by name and the Confucians by implication. However, secular scholars usually consider Laozi and Zhuangzi to have been essentially mythological figures.[47][48]

Early Taoist texts reject the basic assumptions of Confucianism which relied on rituals and order, in favour of the examples of "wild" nature and individualism. Historical Taoists challenged conventional morality, while Confucians considered society debased and in need of strong ethical guidance.[49]
[edit]
Interaction with Dharmic traditions
Main article: East Asian Buddhism

A painting of Confucius presenting a young Buddha to Laozi.

The entry of Buddhism into China from India was marked by interaction and syncretism with Taoism in particular.[50] Originally seen as a kind of "foreign Taoism", Buddhism's scriptures were translated into Chinese using the Taoist vocabulary.[51] Chan Buddhism was particularly modified by Taoism, integrating distrust of scripture, text and even language, as well as the Taoist views of embracing "this life", dedicated practice and the "every-moment".[52] In the Tang period Taoism incorporated such Buddhist elements as monasteries, vegetarianism, prohibition of alcohol, the doctrine of emptiness, and collecting scripture into tripartite organisation. During the same time, Chan Buddhism grew to become the largest sect in Chinese Buddhism.[53]

Buddhism was not universally welcomed, particularly among the gentry. The Buddha's "Dharma" seemed alien and amoral to conservative and Confucian sensibilities.[54] Confucianism promoted social stability, order, strong families, and practical living, and Chinese officials questioned how a monk's monasticism and personal attainment of nirvana benefited the empire.[55] However, Buddhism and Confucianism eventually reconciled after centuries of conflict and assimilation.[56]

Ideological and political rivals for centuries, Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism deeply influenced one another.[57] They did share some similar values. All three embraced a humanist philosophy emphasizing moral behavior and human perfection. In time, most Chinese people identified to some extent with all three traditions simultaneously.[58] This became institutionalised when aspects of the three schools were synthesised in the Neo-Confucian school.[59]

[edit]
See also
Dharmic traditions
Religion in China
Religion in Japan
Religion in Korea
Religion in Vietnam
[edit]
Footnotes and references
^ Sharot, Stephen. A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: virtuosos, priests, and popular religion. Pp 71-72, 75-76. New York: NYU Press, 2001. ISBN 0814798055.
^ Maspero, Henri. Translated by Frank A. Kierman, Jr. Taoism and Chinese Religion. pg 32. University of Massachusetts, 1981.
^ de Groot, J. J. M. Religion in China: Universism a Key to the Study of Taoism and Confucianism. Pp 45-46. Kessinger Publishing. 2004. ISBN 141794658X.
^ James, Edwin Olver. The Comparative Study of Religions of the East (excluding Christianity and Judaism). Pg 5. University of Michigan Press. 1959.
^ Ito, Satoshi. Translated by Breen, John & Teeuwen, Mark. Shinto - A Short History. Pg 9. Routledge. 2003. ISBN 0415311799
^ Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions: An Encyclopaedia of the World's Faiths. Pg 164. I.B. Tauris. 1997. ISBN 1860641482.
^ Vrijhof, Pieter Hendrik & Waardenburg, Jean Jacques. Official and Popular Religion: Analysis of a Theme for Religious Studies. Pg 419. Walter de Gruyter. 1979. ISBN 9027979987.
^ Beversluis, Joel Diederik. Sourcebook of the World's Religions: An Interfaith Guide to Religion and Spirituality. Pg 41. New World Library. 2000. ISBN 1577311213.
^ Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions: An Encyclopaedia of the World's Faiths. Pp 164-165, 174-175. I.B. Tauris. 1997. ISBN 1860641482.
^ Northrop, Filmer Stuart Cuckow. The Meeting of East and West: An Inquiry Concerning World Understanding. Pg 412. The Macmillan company. 1946.
^ Yamamoto, J. Isamu.Buddhism: Buddhism, Taoism and Other Far Eastern Religions. Zondervan. 1998. ISBN 0310489121.
^ Cane, Eulalio Paul. Harmony: Radical Taoism Gently Applied. Pg 13. Trafford Publishing, 2002. ISBN 1412247780.
^ Martinson, Paul Varo A theology of world religions: Interpreting God, self, and world in Semitic, Indian, and Chinese thought. Pp 168-169. Augsburg Publishing House. 1987. ISBN 0806622539.
^ This concept of being unable to accurately describe Tao is common among East Asian religions and Taoist writings. For example, "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name." Tao Te Ching, First Chapter
^ See Wu Chi and Tai Chi for more information about "non-existence" and "existence" in East Asian religious thought.
^ Sharot, Stephen. A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: virtuosos, priests, and popular religion. Pp 77-78, 88. New York: NYU Press, 2001. ISBN 0814798055.
^ Yao, Xinzhong. An Introduction to Confucianism. Pp 155-156. Cambridge University Press. 2000. ISBN 0521644305.
^ James, Edwin Olver. The Comparative Study of Religions of the East (excluding Christianity and Judaism). Pg 5. University of Michigan Press. 1959.
^ Leaman, Oliver. Key Concepts in Eastern Philosophy . Pg 111. Routledge, 1999. ISBN 0415173620.
^ Slingerland, Edward Gilman. Effortless Action: Wu-Wei as Conceptual Metaphor and Spiritual Ideal in Early China. Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0195138996.
^ Sharot, Stephen. A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: virtuosos, priests, and popular religion. Pg 78. New York: NYU Press, 2001. ISBN 0814798055.
^ Segal, Robert Alan. The Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion. Pg 50. Blackwell Publishing. 2006. ISBN 0631232168.
^ Maspero, Henri. Translated by Frank A. Kierman, Jr. Taoism and Chinese Religion. pg 41. University of Massachusetts, 1981.
^ LaFargue, Michael. Tao and Method: A Reasoned Approach to the Tao Te Ching. Pg 283. SUNY Press. 1994. ISBN 0791416011
^ Yao, Xinzhong. An Introduction to Confucianism. pp 191-192. Cambridge University Press. 2000. ISBN 0521644305
^ Smart, Ninian. World Philosophies. Pp 66. Routledge (UK). 2000. ISBN 0415228522.
^ De Bary,William Theodore & Tu, Weiming. Confucianism and Human Rights. Pg 149. Columbia University Press. 1998. ISBN 0231109369.
^ Sharot, Stephen. A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: virtuosos, priests, and popular religion. Pp 46, 85. New York: NYU Press, 2001. ISBN 0814798055.
^ Huang, Siu-chi. Essentials of Neo-Confucianism: Eight Major Philosophers of the Song and Ming Periods. Pg 5. Greenwood Press, 1999. ISBN 031326449X.
^ Huang, Siu-chi. Essentials of Neo-Confucianism: Eight Major Philosophers of the Song and Ming Periods. Pp 11-12, 63-64, 106. Greenwood Press, 1999. ISBN 031326449X.
^ Maspero, Henri. Translated by Frank A. Kierman, Jr. Taoism and Chinese Religion. pg 52-53. University of Massachusetts, 1981.
^ Flew, Antony G. A Dictionary of Philosophy. Pg 62. St. Martin's Griffin. 1984. ISBN 0312209231.
^ Pilgrim, Richard B. Buddhism and the Arts of Japan. Pg 1. Columbia University Press. 1999. ISBN 0231113471
^ Sharot, Stephen. A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: virtuosos, priests, and popular religion. Pp. 161-162. New York: NYU Press, 2001. ISBN 0814798055.
^ Ono, Sakyo. Shinto: The Kami Way. Pp 97-99, 103-104. Tuttle Publishing. 2004. ISBN 0804835578
^ Ono, Sakyo. Shinto: The Kami Way. Pp 51-52, 108. Tuttle Publishing. 2004. ISBN 0804835578
^ Markham, Ian S. & Ruparell, Tinu . Encountering Religion: an introduction to the religions of the world. pp 304-306 Blackwell Publishing, 2001. ISBN 0631206744.
^ Ono, Sakyo. Shinto: The Kami Way. Pg 12. Tuttle Publishing. 2004. ISBN 0804835578
^ Maspero, Henri. Translated by Frank A. Kierman, Jr. Taoism and Chinese Religion. pg 48. University of Massachusetts, 1981.
^ Markham, Ian S. & Ruparell, Tinu . Encountering Religion: an introduction to the religions of the world. pp 199-200, 202. Blackwell Publishing, 2001. ISBN 0631206744.
^ Sharot, Stephen. A Comparative Sociology of World Religions: virtuosos, priests, and popular religion. Pp 72, 77. New York: NYU Press, 2001. ISBN 0814798055.
^ Whiting, J.R.S. Religions for Today. Pp 46-47. Nelson Thornes. 1991. ISBN 0748705864
^ Markham, Ian S. & Ruparell, Tinu . Encountering Religion: an introduction to the religions of the world. pp 202-203 Blackwell Publishing, 2001. ISBN 0631206744.
^ Markham, Ian S. & Ruparell, Tinu. Encountering Religion: an introduction to the religions of the world. Pg 254. Blackwell Publishing, 2001. ISBN 0631206744.
^ Hansen, Chad D. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation. Pp 202, 210. Oxford University Press. 2000. ISBN 0195134192.
^ Fisher, Mary Pat. Living Religions: An Encyclopaedia of the World's Faiths. Pg 167. I.B. Tauris. 1997. ISBN 1860641482.
^ Boltz, William G. "Lao tzu Tao te ching." Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide, edited by Michael Loewe. pg 270. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of East Asian Studies. 1993. (Laozi)
^ Birrell, Anne. Chinese Myths. Pp 16-17. University of Texas Press. 2000. ISBN 0292708793. (Zhuangzi)
^ Maspero, Henri. Translated by Frank A. Kierman, Jr. Taoism and Chinese Religion. pg 39. University of Massachusetts, 1981.
^ Maspero, Henri. Translated by Frank A. Kierman, Jr. Taoism and Chinese Religion. pg 46. University of Massachusetts, 1981.
^ Prebish, Charles. Buddhism: A Modern Perspective. Pg 192. Penn State Press, 1975. ISBN 0271011955.
^ Dumoulin, Heinrich, Heisig, James W. & Knitter, Paul. Zen Buddhism: A History (India and China). Pp 68, 70-73, 167-168. World Wisdom, Inc, 2005. ISBN 0941532895.
^ Dumoulin, Heinrich, Heisig, James W. & Knitter, Paul. Zen Buddhism: A History (India and China). Pp 166-167, 169-172. World Wisdom, Inc, 2005. ISBN 0941532895.
^ Dumoulin, Heinrich, Heisig, James W. & Knitter, Paul. Zen Buddhism: A History (India and China). Pp 189-190, 268-269. World Wisdom, Inc, 2005. ISBN 0941532895.
^ Prebish, Charles. Buddhism: A Modern Perspective. Pg 192. Penn State Press, 1975. ISBN 0271011955.
^ Moore, Charles Alexander. The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Pp 133, 147. University of Hawaii Press. 1967. ISBN 0824800753.
^ Markham, Ian S. & Ruparell, Tinu . Encountering Religion: an introduction to the religions of the world. pp 248-249. Blackwell Publishing, 2001. ISBN 0631206744.
^ Windows on Asia Asian Studies Center, Michigan State University.
^ Moore, Charles Alexander. The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture. Pp 133, 147. University of Hawaii Press. 1967. ISBN 0824800753.
[edit]
External links
Internet East Asian History Sourcebook: Religious Traditions
Resources for East Asian Religions[show]
v • d • e
Philosophy of religion

[show]
v • d • e
Religion topics

Categories: Religious comparison | Religion in Asia | Religious faiths, traditions, and movements | East Asian religions

Averroes

Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:56:35 +0100

AverroesMuslim scholar
Medieval Philosophy

Ibn Rushd shown in the detail of painting by Italian artist Andrea di Bonaiuto (Florence, 14th century)
Full name Ibn Rushd (known in European literature as Averroes)
Born 1126
Cordoba, Al-Andalus
Died 10 December, 1198
Marrakech, Morocco
School/tradition Islam, Maliki madhab, Averroism
Main interests Islamic theology, Islamic law, Islamic philosophy, Geography, Medicine, Mathematics, Physics
Notable ideas Existence precedes essence; inertia; rejected epicycles; arachnoid mater; Parkinson's disease; photoreceptor; secular thought; and the reconciliation of reason with faith, philosophy with religion, and Aristotelianism with Islam
Influenced by[show]
Influenced[show]

Abū 'l-Walīd Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Rushd (Arabic: أبو الوليد محمد بن احمد بن رشد‎), better known just as Ibn Rushd (Arabic: ابن رشد‎), and in European literature as Averroes (pronounced /əˈvɛroʊ.iːz/) (1126 – December 10, 1198), was an Andalusian Muslim polymath: a master of Islamic philosophy, Islamic theology, Maliki law and jurisprudence, logic, psychology, politics, Arabic music theory, and the sciences of medicine, astronomy, geography, mathematics, physics and celestial mechanics. He was born in Córdoba, Al Andalus, modern day Spain, and died in Marrakesh, modern day Morocco. His school of philosophy is known as Averroism. He has been described as the founding father of secular thought in Western Europe[2] and "one of the spiritual fathers of Europe."[3]

His name is also seen as Averroës, Averroès or Averrhoës, indicating that the "o" and the "e" form separate syllables. Averroes is a Latinate distortion of the actual Arab name Ibn Rushd.[4]Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 Works
3 Contributions
3.1 Philosophy
3.2 Astronomy
3.3 Celestial mechanics
3.4 Law and jurisprudence
3.5 Logic
3.6 Medicine
3.7 Music theory
3.8 Physics
3.9 Politics
3.10 Psychology
4 Significance
5 Cultural influences
6 List of Works
6.1 Logic
6.2 Philosophy of Nature
6.3 Psychology
6.4 Metaphysics
6.5 Practical Philosophy
6.6 Mathematics
7 See also
8 Notes
9 Further reading
10 External links

[edit]
Biography

Ibn Rushd came from a family of Islamic legal scholars; his grandfather Abu Al-Walid Muhammad (d. 1126) was chief judge of Córdoba under the Almoravid dynasty. His father, Abu Al-Qasim Ahmad, held the same position until the coming of the Almohad dynasty in 1146.[5]

Ibn Rushd began his career with the help of Ibn Tufail ("Aben Tofail" to the West), the author of Hayy ibn Yaqdhan and philosophic vizier of Almohad amir Abu Yaqub Yusuf. It was Ibn Tufail who introduced him to the court and to Ibn Zuhr ("Avenzoar" to the West), the great Muslim physician, who became Ibn Rushd's teacher and friend.[6] Ibn Rushd later reported how it was also Ibn Tufail that inspired him to write his famous Aristotelian commentaries:

Abu Bakr ibn Tufayl summoned me one day and told me that he had heard the Commander of the Faithful complaining about the disjointedness of Aristotle's mode of expression — or that of the translators — and the resultant obscurity of his intentions. He said that if someone took on these books who could summarize them and clarify their aims after first thoroughly understanding them himself, people would have an easier time comprehending them. “If you have the energy,” Ibn Tufayl told me, “you do it. I'm confident you can, because I know what a good mind and devoted character you have, and how dedicated you are to the art. You understand that only my great age, the cares of my office — and my commitment to another task that I think even more vital — keep me from doing it myself.”[7]

Ibn Rushd was also a student of Ibn Bajjah ("Avempace" to the West), another famous Islamic philosopher who greatly influenced his own Averroist thought. However, while the thought of his mentors Ibn Tufail and Ibn Bajjah were mystic to an extent, the thought of Ibn Rushd was purely rationalist. Together, the three men are considered the greatest Andalusian philosophers.[5]

In 1160, Ibn Rushd was made Qadi (judge) of Seville and he served in many court appointments in Seville, Cordoba, and Morocco during his career. At the end of the 12th century, following the Almohads conquest of Al-Andalus, his political career was ended. Ibn Rushd's strictly rationalist views which collided with the more orthodox views of Abu Yusuf Ya'qub al-Mansur led to him banishing Averroes though he had previously appointed him as his personal physician. Averroes was not reinstated until shortly before his death. He devoted the rest of his life to his philosophical writings.
[edit]
Works

Ibn Rushd's works were spread over 20,000 pages covering a variety of different subjects, including early Islamic philosophy, logic in Islamic philosophy, Arabic medicine, Arabic mathematics, Arabic astronomy, Arabic grammar, Islamic theology, Sharia (Islamic law), and Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). In particular, his most important works dealt with Islamic philosophy, medicine and Fiqh. He wrote at least 67 original works, which included 28 works on philosophy, 20 on medicine, 8 on law, 5 on theology, and 4 on grammar, in addition to his commentaries on most of Aristotle's works and his commentary on Plato's The Republic.[5]

He wrote commentaries on most of the surviving works of Aristotle. These were not based on primary sources (it is not known whether he knew Greek), but rather on Arabic translations. There were three levels of commentary: the Jami, the Talkhis and the Tafsir which are, respectively, a simplified overview, an intermediate commentary with more critical material, and an advanced study of Aristotelian thought in a Muslim context. The terms are taken from the names of different types of commentary on the Qur'an. It is not known whether he wrote commentaries of all three types on all the works: in most cases only one or two commentaries survive.

He did not have access to any text of Aristotle's Politics. As a substitute for this, he commented on Plato's The Republic, arguing that the ideal state there described was the same as the original constitution of the Arab Caliphate,[5] as well as the Almohad state of Ibn Tumart.

Imaginary debate between Averroes and Porphyry. Monfredo de Monte Imperiali Liber de herbis, 14th century.[8]

His most important original philosophical work was The Incoherence of the Incoherence (Tahafut al-tahafut), in which he defended Aristotelian philosophy against al-Ghazali's claims in The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahafut al-falasifa). Al-Ghazali argued that Aristotelianism, especially as presented in the writings of Avicenna, was self-contradictory and an affront to the teachings of Islam. Averroes' rebuttal was two-pronged: he contended both that al-Ghazali's arguments were mistaken and that, in any case, the system of Avicenna was a distortion of genuine Aristotelianism so that al-Ghazali was aiming at the wrong target. Other works were the Fasl al-Maqal, which argued for the legality of philosophical investigation under Islamic law, and the Kitab al-Kashf, which argued against the proofs of Islam advanced by the Ash'arite school and discussed what proofs, on the popular level, should be used instead.

Averroes is also a highly-regarded legal scholar of the Maliki school. Perhaps his best-known work in this field is Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid ( بداية المجتهد و نهاية المقتصد), a textbook of Maliki doctrine in a comparative framework.

In medicine, Averroes wrote a medical encyclopedia called Kulliyat ("Generalities", i.e. general medicine), known in its Latin translation as Colliget. He also made a compilation of the works of Galen (129-200) and wrote a commentary on The Law of Medicine (Qanun fi 't-tibb) of Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (980-1037).

Jacob Anatoli translated several of the works of Averroes from Arabic into Hebrew in the 1200s. Many of them were later translated from Hebrew into Latin by Jacob Mantino and Abraham de Balmes. Other works were translated directly from Arabic into Latin by Michael Scot. Many of his works in logic and metaphysics have been permanently lost, while others, including some of the longer Aristotelian commentaries, have only survived in Latin or Hebrew translation, not in the original Arabic. The fullest version of his works is in Latin, and forms part of the multi-volume Juntine edition of Aristotle published in Venice 1562-1574.
[edit]
Contributions
[edit]
Philosophy

Giovanni di Paolo's St. Thomas Aquinas Confounding Averroës.
See also: Averroism and The Incoherence of the Incoherence

According to Ibn Rushd, there is no conflict between religion and philosophy, rather that they are different ways of reaching the same truth. He believed in the eternity of the universe. He also held that the soul is divided into two parts, one individual and one divine; while the individual soul is not eternal, all humans at the basic level share one and the same divine soul. Ibn Rushd has two kinds of Knowledge of Truth. The first being his knowledge of truth of religion being based in faith and thus could not be tested, nor did it require training to understand. The second knowledge of truth is philosophy, which was reserved for an elite few who had the intellectual capacity to undertake this study.

The concept of "existence precedes essence", a key foundational concept of existentialism, can also be found in the works of Ibn Rushd, as a reaction to Ibn Sina's concept of "essence precedes existence".[9] Ibn Rushd's most famous original philosophical work was The Incoherence of the Incoherence, a rebuttal to Al-Ghazali's The Incoherence of the Philosophers. In medieval Europe, his school of philosophy known as Averroism exerted a strong influence on Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and Jewish philosophers such as Gersonides and Maimonides.[5]
[edit]
Astronomy

At the age of 25, Ibn Rushd conducted astronomical observations near Marrakech, Morocco, during which he discovered a previously unobserved star.[10]

In astronomical theory, Ibn Rushd rejected the eccentric deferents introduced by Ptolemy. He rejected the Ptolemaic model and instead argued for a strictly concentric model of the universe. He wrote the following criticism on the Ptolemaic model of planetary motion:[11]

"To assert the existence of an eccentric sphere or an epicyclic sphere is contrary to nature. [...] The astronomy of our time offers no truth, but only agrees with the calculations and not with what exists."

Ibn Rushd also argued that the Moon is opaque and obscure, and has some parts which are thicker than others, with the thicker parts receiving more light from the Sun than the thinner parts of the Moon.[12] He also gave one of the first descriptions on sunspots.[13]
[edit]
Celestial mechanics
See also: Celestial spheres

In celestial mechanics, while discussing the celestial spheres, Averroes rejected John Philoponus' 'anti-Aristotelian' solution to his refutation of Aristotelian celestial dynamics, and instead restored Aristotle's law of motion by adopting the 'hidden variable' approach to resolving apparent refutations of parametric laws that posits a previously unaccounted variable and its value(s) for some parameter, thereby modifying the predicted value of the subject variable. For, he posited a non-gravitational, previously unaccounted, inherent resistance to motion, as hidden within the celestial spheres. This was a non-gravitational inherent resistance to motion of superlunary quintessential matter, whereby R > 0 even when there is neither any gravitational, nor any media resistance, to motion.

Hence, in refuting the prediction of Aristotelian celestial dynamics:
[ (i) v α F/R & (ii) F > 0 & (iii) R = 0 ] entail v is infinite

the alternative logic of Averroes' solution was to reject its third premise "R = 0" instead of rejecting its first premise as Philoponus had.

Thus Averroes most significantly revised Aristotle's law of motion "v α F/R" into "v α F/M" for the case of celestial motion with his auxiliary theory of what may be called celestial inertia M, whereby R = M > 0. But Averroes restricted inertia to celestial bodies and denied sublunar bodies have any inherent resistance to motion other than their gravitational (or levitational) inherent resistance to violent motion, just as in Aristotle's original sublunar physics.

However, Thomas Aquinas, also a student of Aristotelianism, rejected this denial of sublunar inertia and extended Averroes' innovation in the celestial physics of the spheres to all sublunar bodies. He posited all bodies universally have a non-gravitational inherent resistance to motion constituted by their magnitude or mass.[14] In his Systeme du Monde, the pioneering historian of medieval science Pierre Duhem, stated:

"For the first time we have seen human reason distinguish two elements in a heavy body: the motive force, that is, in modern terms, the weight; and the moved thing, the corpus quantum, or as we say today, the mass. For the first time we have seen the notion of mass being introduced in mechanics, and being introduced as equivalent to what remains in a body when one has suppressed all forms in order to leave only the prime matter quantified by its determined dimensions. Saint Thomas Aquinas's analysis, completing Ibn Bajja's, came to distinguish three notions in a falling body: the weight, the mass, and the resistance of the medium, about which physics will reason during the modern era....This mass, this quantified body, resists the motor attempting to transport it from one place to another, stated Thomas Aquinas."[15]

Some five centuries after Averroes' and Aquinas' innovations, it was Johannes Kepler who first dubbed this non-gravitational inherent resistance to motion in all bodies universally 'inertia'.[16] Hence the crucial notion of 17th century early classical mechanics of a resistant force of inertia inherent in all bodies was born in the heavens of medieval astrophysics, in the Aristotelian physics of the celestial spheres, rather than in terrestrial physics or in experiments.[17]

However, having discounted the possibility of any resistance due to a contrary inclination to move in any opposite direction or due to any external resistance, in concluding their impetus was therefore not corrupted by any resistance, Jean Buridan also discounted any inherent resistance to motion in the form of an inclination to rest within the spheres themselves, such as the inertia posited by Averroes and Aquinas. For otherwise, that resistance would destroy their impetus, as the anti-Duhemian historian of science Annaliese Maier maintained the Parisian impetus dynamicists were forced to conclude, because of their belief in an inherent inclinatio ad quietem (tendency to rest) or inertia in all bodies.[18] But in fact, contrary to that inertial variant of Aristotelian dynamics, according to Buridan, prime matter does not resist motion.[19]
[edit]
Law and jurisprudence

As a Qadi (judge), Ibn Rushd wrote the Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqtasid, a Maliki legal treatise dealing with Sharia (law) and Fiqh (jurisprudence) which, according to Al-Dhahabi in the 13th century, was considered the best treatise ever written on the subject.[5] Ibn Rushd's summary the opinions (fatwa) of previous Islamic jurists on a variety of issues has continued to influence Islamic scholars to the present day, notably Javed Ahmad Ghamidi.[20] While Ibn Rushd himself claimed that women in Islam were equal to men in all respects and possessed equal capacities to shine in peace and in war,[5] he summarized the opinions of previous jurists and Imams on the status of women's testimony in Islam as follows:[20]

"There is a general consensus among the jurists that in financial transactions a case stands proven by the testimony of a just man and two women on the basis of the verse: ‘If two men cannot be found then one man and two women from among those whom you deem appropriate as witnesses’. However; in cases of Hudud, there is a difference of opinion among our jurists. The majority say that in these affairs the testimony of women is in no way acceptable whether they testify alongside a male witness or do so alone. The Zahiris on the contrary maintain that if they are more than one and are accompanied by a male witness, then owing to the apparent meaning of the verse their testimony will be acceptable in all affairs. Imam Abu Hanifah is of the opinion that except in cases of Hudud and in financial transactions their testimony is acceptable in bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ [restitution of conjugal rights]. Imam Malik is of the view that their testimony is not acceptable in bodily affairs. There is however a difference of opinion among the companions of Imam Malik regarding bodily affairs which relate to wealth like advocacy and will-testaments which do not specifically relate to wealth. Consequently, Ash-hab and Ibn Majishun accept two male witnesses only in these affairs, while to Malik Ibn Qasim and Ibn Wahab two female and a male witness are acceptable. As far as the matter of women as sole witnesses is concerned, the majority accept it only in bodily affairs, about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances like the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth."

He also discussed Islamic economic jurisprudence, particularly the concept of Riba (usury). He reported that Ibn ‘Abbas, a sahaba (companion) of Muhammad, did not accept Riba al-Fadl (interest in excess) because, according to him, the Prophet Muhammad had clarified that there was no Riba except in credit.[21] He also discussed the role of Islamic criminal jurisprudence in the Islamic dietary laws in regards to the consumption of alcohol. He stated that physical punishment for alcoholic consumption was not originally established as part of the Sharia in Muhammad's time but was later decided by the Shura (consultive council) of the Rashidun Caliphate. He wrote:[22]

"The general opinion in this regard is based on the consultation of ‘Umar (rta) with the members of his Shura. The session of this Shura took place during his period when people started indulging in this habit more frequently. ‘Ali (rta) opined that, by analogy with the punishment of Qadhf, its punishment should also be fixed at eighty stripes. It is said that while presenting his arguments, he had remarked: ‘When he [– the criminal –] drinks, he will get intoxicated and once he gets intoxicated, he will utter nonsense; and once he starts uttering nonsense, he will falsely accuse other people’."
[edit]
Logic

Ibn Rushd was the last major Muslim logician from Al-Andalus. He is known for writing the most elaborate commentaries on Aristotelian logic.[23]
[edit]
Medicine

As a physician, Ibn Rushd wrote twenty treatises on Arabic medicine, including a seven-volume medical encyclopedia entitled Kitābu’l Kulliyāt fī al-Tibb (General Rules of Medicine), better known as Colliget in Latin. This encyclopedic work was completed at some time before 1162 and elaborated on physiology, general pathology, diagnosis, medical material, hygiene and general therapeutics. He argued that no one can suffer from smallpox twice, and fully understood the function of the retina. However, his Colliget was largely overshadowed by the earlier medical encyclopedias, Continents by Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi (Rhazes) and The Canon of Medicine by Ibn Sina (Avicenna). As a result, Averroes' fame as a physician was eclipsed by his own fame as a philosopher. His Kulliyāt was translated into Latin by the Jewish translator Bonacosa in the late 13th century and again by Syphorien Champier in circa 1537, and it was also translated into Hebrew twice. Max Meyerhof notes that the prototypes for the physician-philosophers that predominated in Spain were "Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes)".[5]

Ibn Rushd discussed the topic of human dissection and autopsy. Although he never undertook human dissection, he was aware of it being carried out by some of his contemporaries, such as Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar), and appears to have supported the practice. Ibn Rushd stated that the "practice of dissection strengthens the faith"[24] due to his view of the human body as "the remarkable handiwork of God in his creation."[25] Despite his criticism of Al-Ghazali's theological views, Ibn Rushd agreed with him on the issue of anatomy and dissection, and wrote:[26]

"Whoever has been occupied with the science of anatomy/dissection (tashrfh) has increased his belief in God."

In urology, Ibn Rushd identified the issues of sexual dysfunction and erectile dysfunction, and was among the first to prescribe medication for the treatment of these problems. He used several methods of therapy for this issue, including the single drug method where a tested drug is prescribed, and a "combination method of either a drug or food." Most of these drugs were oral medication, though a few patients were also treated through topical or transurethral means.[27]

In neurology and neuroscience, Ibn Rushd suggested the existence of Parkinson's disease, and in ophthalmology and optics, he was the first to attribute photoreceptor properties to the retina.[28] In his Colliget, he was also the first to suggest that the principal organ of sight might be the arachnoid membrane (aranea). His work led to much discussion in 16th century Europe over whether the principal organ of sight is the traditional Galenic crystalline humour or the Averroist aranea, which in turn led to the discovery that the retina is the principal organ of sight.[29]
[edit]
Music theory

As an Arabic music theorist, Ibn Rushd contributed to music theory with his commentary on Aristotle's On the Soul, where Ibn Rushd dealt perspicuously with the theory of sound. This text was translated into Latin by Michael Scot (d. 1232).[5]
[edit]
Physics

In Averroes' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, he commented on the theory of motion proposed by Ibn Bajjah (Avempace) in Text 71, and also made his own contributions to physics, particularly mechanics. Averroes was the first to define and measure force as "the rate at which work is done in changing the kinetic condition of a material body"[30] and the first to correctly argue "that the effect and measure of force is change in the kinetic condition of a materially resistant mass."[31] It seems he was also the first to introduce the notion that bodies have a (non-gravitational) inherent resistance to motion into physics, subsequently first dubbed 'inertia' by Kepler. But he only attributed it to the superlunary celestial spheres, and in order to explain why they do not move with infinite speed as was predicted by the application of Aristotle's general law of motion v α F/R to celestial motion, given the assumption that the spheres have movers and thus F > 0, but no resistance to their motion, whereby R = 0. [32]

John Philoponus had earlier rejected Aristotle's theory of motion because of this celestial empirical refutation in favour of his alternative theory v α F - R that avoided it because v is finite even when R = 0 and when F > 0 and is finite. But contra Philoponus, Averroes restored it by positing inertia instead, whereby R > 0 even in the absence of any external resistance to motion and of any inherent gravitational resistance, as in the quintessential heavens in Aristotelian cosmology. But Averroes denied sublunar bodies have inertia, and it was Thomas Aquinas, also a student of Aristotelianism, who extended this inherent force to terrestrial bodies as well, thus also rejecting Aristotle's prediction that the speed of gravitational fall of all bodies in a vacuum would be infinite because there would be no resistance to motion in the absence of an external resistant medium (i.e. R = 0). For Aristotle had assumed the only inherent resistance to motion in bodies is that of gravity, without which bodies would not inherently resist any motion, and which does not resist gravitational (i.e. 'natural') motion where it acts as the motor rather than as a brake as it does in violent motion. The Averroes-Aquinas notion of inertia was eventually adopted by Kepler, but not by scholastic Aristotelian impetus dynamics nor Galileo Galilei who maintained like Jean Buridan, for example, that prime matter does not inherently resist any motion and so is indifferent to motion or rest. It eventually became the central concept of Newton's dynamics in its notion of the inherent force of inertia in all bodies, with the minor revision that the force of inertia resists all motion except for uniform straight motion, a purely fictitious ideal motion whose perseverance it would cause. But Newton's inherent force of inertia resists all actual motion, given it is all accelerated motion in the Newtonian cosmos populated by many gravitationally attractive massive bodies. Thus on this analysis Averroes is creditable with one of the two most crucial innovations in the history of the development of Aristotelian dynamics into Newtonian dynamics, namely its two auxiliary notions of the force of impetus and of the force of inertia.
[edit]
Politics

Ibn Rushd did not have access to any text of Aristotle's Politics. As a substitute for this, he commented on Plato's The Republic, arguing that the ideal state there described was the same as the original constitution of the Islamic Caliphate,[5] as well as the Almohad state of Ibn Tumart.

Ibn Rushd also claimed that women were equal to men in all respects and possessed equal capacities to shine in peace and in war, citing examples of female warriors among the Arabs, Greeks and Africans to support his case.[5] In Muslim history, examples of notable female Muslims who fought as soldiers or generals included Nusaybah Bint k’ab Al Maziniyyah,[33] Aisha,[34] Kahula and Wafeira,[35] and Um Umarah.
[edit]
Psychology

H. Chad Hillier writes the following on Ibn Rushd's contributions to psychology:[36]

There is evidence of some evolution in Ibn Rushd's thought on the intellect, notably in his Middle Commentary on De Anima where he combines the positions of Alexander and Themistius for his doctrine on the material intellect and in his Long Commentary and the Tahafut where Ibn Rushd rejected Alexander and endorsed Themistius’ position that "material intellect is a single incorporeal eternal substance that becomes attached to the imaginative faculties of individual humans." Thus, the human soul is a separate substance ontologically identical with the active intellect; and when this active intellect is embodied in an individual human it is the material intellect. The material intellect is analogous to prime matter, in that it is pure potentiality able to receive universal forms. As such, the human mind is a composite of the material intellect and the passive intellect, which is the third element of the intellect. The passive intellect is identified with the imagination, which, as noted above, is the sense-connected finite and passive faculty that receives particular sensual forms. When the material intellect is actualized by information received, it is described as the speculative (habitual) intellect. As the speculative intellect moves towards perfection, having the active intellect as an object of thought, it becomes the acquired intellect. In that, it is aided by the active intellect, perceived in the way Aristotle had taught, to acquire intelligible thoughts. The idea of the soul's perfection occurring through having the active intellect as a greater object of thought is introduced elsewhere, and its application to religious doctrine is seen. In the Tahafut, Ibn Rushd speaks of the soul as a faculty that comes to resemble the focus of its intention, and when its attention focuses more upon eternal and universal knowledge, it become more like the eternal and universal. As such, when the soul perfects itself, it becomes like our intellect.

Ibn Rushd succeeded in providing an explanation of the human soul and intellect that did not involve an immediate transcendent agent. This opposed the explanations found among the Neoplatonists, allowing a further argument for rejecting of Neoplatonic emanation theories. Even so, notes Davidson, Ibn Rushd’s theory of the material intellect was something foreign to Aristotle.
[edit]
Significance

Averroes, detail of the fresco The School of Athens by Raphael

In the West Averroes is most famous for commentaries on Aristotle's works, most of which had been inaccessible to Latin Europe during the Early Middle Ages. Before 1100 only a few of Aristotle's logical works had been translated into Latin by Boethius, although the entire extant Greek corpus was known in Byzantium. After Latin translations of Aristotle's other works from Greek and Arabic were made in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Aristotle became more influential on medieval European philosophy. Averroes' commentaries on Aristotle contributed to his growing influence in the medieval West.

In medieval Europe, Averroes' school of philosophy, known as Averroism, exerted a strong influence on Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and Jewish philosophers such as Gersonides and Maimonides. Despite negative reactions from Jewish Talmudists and the Christian clergy, Averroes' writings were taught at the University of Paris and other medieval universities, and Averroism remained the dominant school of thought in Europe through to the 16th century.[5]

Averroes' argument in The Decisive Treatise provided a justification for the emancipation of science and philosophy from official Ash'ari theology, thus Averroism has been regarded as a precursor to modern secularism,[37][38] and Averroes has been described as one of the founding fathers of secular thought in Western Europe.[2]

George Sarton, the father of the history of science, writes:

"Averroes was great because of the tremendous stir he made in the minds of men for centuries. A history of Averroism would include up to the end of the sixteenth-century, a period of four centuries which would perhaps deserve as much as any other to be called the Middle Ages, for it was the real transition between ancient and modern methods."[39]

Averroes's work on Aristotle spans almost three decades, and he wrote commentaries on almost all of Aristotle's work except for Aristotle's Politics, to which he did not have access. Averroes' philosophical works had less influence on the medieval and early modern Islamic world than the contemporaneous Latin Christian world, as indicated by the fact many of them works did not survive in the original Arabic but rather in Latin and Hebrew translation. However, his works on specifically Islamic topics such as fiqh (Islamic law), which were not translated into Latin, naturally influenced the Islamic world rather than the West. His death coincides with a change in the culture of Al-Andalus. In his work Fasl al-Maqāl (translated a. o. as The Decisive Treatise), he stresses the importance of analytical thinking as a prerequisite to interpret the Qur'an; this is in contrast to orthodox Ash'ari theology, where the emphasis is less on analytical thinking but on extensive knowledge of sources other than the Qur'an, i.e. the hadith.

Hebrew translations of his work also had a lasting impact on Jewish philosophy, in particular Gersonides, who wrote supercommentaries on many of the works. In the Christian world, his ideas were assimilated by Siger of Brabant and Thomas Aquinas and others (especially in the University of Paris) within the Christian scholastic tradition which valued Aristotelian logic. Famous scholastics such as Aquinas believed him to be so important they did not refer to him by name, simply calling him "The Commentator" and calling Aristotle "The Philosopher." Averroes's treatise on Plato's Republic has played a major role in both the transmission and the adaptation of the Platonic tradition in the West. It has been a primary source in medieval political philosophy. On the other hand he was feared by many Christian theologians, who accused him of advocating a "double truth" and denying orthodox doctrines such as individual immortality, and an underground mythology grew up stigmatising him as the ultimate unbeliever; these accusations were largely based on misunderstandings of his work.[40]

A later importation of Averroism into Europe is associated with the University of Padua in the early Renaissance, important names being Zabarella, Cremonini and Niphus.
[edit]
Cultural influences

Commentarium magnum Averrois in Aristotelis De Anima libros. French manuscript, third quarter of the 13th century

Reflecting the respect which medieval European scholars paid to him, Averroes is named by Dante in The Divine Comedy with the great pagan philosophers whose spirits dwell in "the place that favor owes to fame" in Limbo.

Averroes appears in a short story by Jorge Luis Borges, entitled "Averroes's Search", in which he is portrayed trying to find the meanings of the words tragedy and comedy. He is briefly mentioned in the novel Ulysses by James Joyce alongside Maimonides. He appears to be waiting outside the walls of the ancient city of Cordoba in Alamgir Hashmi's poem In Cordoba. He is also the main character in Destiny, a Youssef Chahine film. The muslim pop musician Kareem Salama composed and performed a song in 2007 titled Aristotle and Averroes.

Averroes is also the title of a play called "The Gladius and The Rose", written by Tunisian writer Mohamed Ghozzi, and which had the first price in the theater festival in Charjah in 1999.

The asteroid "8318 Averroes" was named in his honor. averroes is one of the most well known scientist of today.
[edit]
List of Works
[edit]
Logic
[edit]
Short Commentary
[1] Short Commentary on Aristotle's Organon / Tajrīd al-ʾaqāwīl al-ḍarūrīya min ṣināʿat al-manṭiq (Aka: Al-ḍarūrī; Al-ḍarūrī fī l-manṭiq; Kitāb fī l-manṭiq; Muḫtaṣar fī l-manṭiq) ca. 552/1157
[edit]
Middle Commentaries
[2] Middle Commentary on the Isagoge / Talḫīṣ madḫal fī Fūrfūrīyūš (Aka: Talḥīṣ kitāb ʾĪsāġūjī)

Talḫīṣ kitāb ʾArisṭū fī l-manṭiq
[3] Middle Commentary on the Categories / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-maqūlāt
[4] Middle Commentary on Peri hermeneias / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-ʿibāra
[5] Middle Commentary on the Prior Analytics / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-qiyās
[6] Middle Commentary on the Posterior Analytics / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-burhān (Aka: Talḫīṣ kitāb al-burhān li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs; Talḫīṣ kitāb al-burhān lahū)
[7] Middle Commentary on the Topics / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-jadal
[8] Middle Commentary on the Sophistici Elenchi / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-safsaṭa
[9] Middle Commentary on the Rhethorics / Talḫīṣ al-ḫiṭāba [570/1175 or 571/1176]
[10] Middle Commentary on the Poetics / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-šiʿr
[edit]
Long Commentaries
[11] Long Commentary on the Prior Analytics (?) / Šarḥ kitāb al-qiyās li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs (Aka: Kitāb šarḥ kitāb al-qiyās li-ʾArisṭū)
[12] Long Commentary on the Posterior Analytics / Šarḥ kitāb al-burhān
[edit]
Questions
[13] Questions on Logic / Quæsita in libros logicæ Aristotelis (Part of: Masāʿil fī l-ḥikma, aka: Muqaddimāt fī l-ḥikma)
[edit]
Questions on the Isagoge
[13.1] On Alfarabi on the Isagoge about genus and differentia / Kalām ʿalā qawl ʾAbī Naṣr fī l-madḫal wa-l-jins wa-l-faṣl yuštarikān
[edit]
Questions on the Categories
[13.2] On substantial and accidental universals / Al-qawl fī kullīyāt al-jawhar wa-kullīyāt al-ʾaʿraḍ (Aka: Bāb ʿalā maqūla ʾawwal kitāb ʾAbī Naṣr (?), Maqāla ʿalā ʾawwal maqūla ʾAbī Naṣr (?))
[edit]
Questions on Peri hermeneias
[13.3] On the copula and on derived nouns / Maqāla fī l-kalima wa-l-ism al-muštaqq (Aka: Kalām lahū ʿalā l-kalima wa-l-ism al-muštaqq, Min kitāb al-ʿibāra li-ʾAbī Naṣr)
[13.4] On compound and simple predicates / Min kitāb al-ʿibāra (Aka: De prædicatis compositis et divisis)
[edit]
Questions on the Prior Analytics
[13.5] On the definition: Critique of the positions of Alexander and Alfarabi / Al-qawl fī l-ḥadd wa-naqd mā ḏahaba ʾilayhī al-ʾIskandar wa-ʾAbū Naṣr (Aka: Maqāla fī l-ḥadd (juzʾ al-qiyās) wa-naqd maḏahabay al-ʾIskandar wa-ʾAbī Naṣr; De definitione termini)
[13.6] Critique of Avicenna's position on the conversion of premises / Naqd maḏhab Ibn Sīnā fī inʿikās al-qaḍāyā (Aka: Maqāla fī naqd maḏhab Ibn Sīnā fī ʿaks al-qaḍāyā; De conversionibus)
[13.7] Critique of Themistius's position on the contingent syllogisms in the first and second figure / Naqd maḏhab Tāmisṭiyūs fī l-maqāyīs al-mumkina fī l-šaklayn al-ʾawwal wa-l-ṯānī (Aka: De conditione syllogismorum contingentium circa duo eorum attributa, videlicet de numerositate illationis, et de figura in qua non concludunt)
[13.8] Chapter on absolute premises / Maqāla fī l-muqaddima al-muṭlaqa (Aka: Quid sit propositio absoluta id est de inesse)
[13.9] On the types of conclusions in compound syllogisms / Al-qawl fī jihāt al-natāʾij fī l-maqāyīs al-murakkaba wa-fī maʿnā al-maqūl ʿalā l-kull
[13.10] Chapter on the dependency of the types of conclusions from the types of premises / Maqāla [...] fī luzūm jihāt al-natāʾij li-jihāt al-muqaddimāt
[13.11] On the mixing of contingent and necessary premises / De mistione contingentis et necessarii
[13.12] Chapter on the dependency of the conclusions from mixed syllogisms
[13.13] Chapter on the meaning of "predicated on everything" / Maqāla [...] fī maʿnā al- maqūl ʿalā l-kull wa-ġayr ḏālika
[13.14] Chapter on conditional syllogisms / Maqāla fī l-maqāʾis al-šarṭīya (Aka: Maqāla fī l-qiyās; De conditionali, an per ipsum ostendatur quæsitum primum ignotum)
[13.15] Exposition of Alfarabi's commentary on the first book of the Prior Analytics / Talḫīṣ šarḥ ʾAbī Naṣr [li-]l-maqāla al-ʾūlā min al-qiyās li-l-ḥakīm
[edit]
Questions on the Posterior Analytics
[13.16] On the predicates in demonstrations / Al-qawl fī l-maḥmūlāt al-barāhīn (Aka: Epistola de primitate prædicatorum in demonstrationibus)
[13.17] On Alfarabi's Book on Demonstration / Min kitāb al-burhān li-ʾAbī Naṣr
[13.18] On the definition of individuals / Al-qawl fī ḥadd al-šaḫṣ (Aka: An definitio sit particularis aut universalis tantum)
[13.19] On the three types of definition in relation to demonstrations / De triplici genere diffinitionum in ordine ad demonstrationem
[13.20] On whether the middle term is the cause of the major term / De medio demonstrationis an sit causa maioris extremi
[13.21] Treatise on the disagreement of Alfarabi and Aristotle on the order of the Posterior Analytics and the rules of demonstrations and definitions / Kitāb fī mā ḫālafa ʾAbū Naṣr li-ʾArisṭū fī kitāb al-burhān min tartībihī wa-qawānīn al-barāhīn wa-l-ḥudūd (Aka: De conditionibus præmissarum demonstrationis)
[13.22] On the conditions for the necessity of the premises of demonstrations / De conditionibus quæ requiruntur ad necessitatem præmissarum demonstrationum
[13.23] On how a demonstration can be transferred from one science to another / Quomodo fiat translatio ab una arte in aliam
[13.24] On demonstrations quia / De demonstrationibus quia
[13.25] On the sense in which the definition is better known than the thing defined / Quomodo definitio sit notior ipso definito
[13.26] On the definitions which are said to differ from demonstrations in their order / De definitionibus quæ dicuntur positione differentes a demonstratione
[edit]
Philosophy of Nature
[edit]
Physics
[14] Short Commentary on the Physics / Jawāmiʿ al-samāʾ al-ṭabīʿī (Part of: Al-jawāmiʿ fī l-falsafa; Jawāmiʿ kutub ʾArisṭūṭālīs fī l-ṭabīʿīyāt wa-l-ʾilāhīyāt)
[15] Middle Commentary on the Physics / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-samāʾ al- al-ṭabīʿī (Aka: [...] li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs; Talḫīṣ al- ṭabīʿī; Wa-laḫaṣa kitāb al-samāʿ al-ṭabīʿī li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs)
[16] Long Commentary on the Physics / Šarḥ [kitāb] al-samāʾ al-ṭabīʿī
[edit]
On the Heaven
[17] Short Commentary on De cælo / Jawāmiʿ al-samāʾ wa-l-ʿālam (Part of: Al-jawāmiʿ fī l-falsafa; Jawāmiʿ kutub ʾArisṭūṭālīs fī l-ṭabīʿīyāt wa-l-ʾilāhīyāt)
[18] Middle Commentary on De cælo / Talḫīṣ [kitāb] al-samāʾ wa-l-ʿālam
[19] Long Commentary on De cælo / Šarḥ kitāb al-samāʾ wa-l-ʿālam (Aka: Šarḥ kitāb al-samāʾ wa-l-ʿālam li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs; Šarḥ al-samāʾ wa-l-ʿālam)
[20] De substantia orbis
[edit]
On Generation and Corruption
[21] Short Commentary on De generatione et corruptione / Jawāmiʿ kitāb al-kaun wa-l-fasād (Part of: Al-jawāmiʿ fī l-falsafa; Jawāmiʿ kutub ʾArisṭūṭālīs fī l-ṭabīʿīyāt wa-l-ʾilāhīyāt)
[22] Middle Commentary on De generatione et corruptione / Talḫīṣ [kitāb] al-kaun wa-l-fasād 567/1172
[edit]
Meteorology
[23] Short Commentary on the Meteorology / Jawāmiʿ kitāb al-ʾaṯār al-ʿulwīya (Part of: Al-jawāmiʿ fī l-falsafa; Jawāmiʿ kutub ʾArisṭūṭālīs fī l-ṭabīʿīyāt wa-l-ʾilāhīyāt)
[24] Middle Commentary on the Meteorology / Talḫīṣ [kitāb] al-ʾāṯār al-ʿulwīya
[edit]
Biology
[25] Middle(?) Commentary on De animalibus / Talḫīṣ tisʿ maqālāt min kitāb al-ḥayawān (Aka: Talḫīṣ tisʿ maqālāt min kitāb al-ḥayawān wa-ḏālika min al-ḥādīya ʿašr ʾilā ʾāḫar al-diwān; Talḫīṣ fī l-maqāla al-ḥādīya ʿašara min kitāb al-ḥayawān li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs wa-ḏālika tisʿ maqālāt; Kitāb al-ḥayawān) 565/1169
[26] Chapter on animals / Maqāla fī l-ḥayawān (Aka: Kalām lahū ʿalā l-ḥayawān)
[27] Short Commentary on De plantis
[edit]
Questions
[28] Questions on the Philosophy of Nature / Sefer ha-derušim ha-ṭibʿiyim
[edit]
Psychology
[edit]
Commentaries
[29] "Book on the Soul" or Short Commentary on De anima / Kitāb al-nafs
[30] Middle Commentary on De anima / Talḫīṣ kitāb al-nafs 577/1181
[31] Long Commentary on De anima / Šarḥ kitāb al-nafs (Aka: Šarḥ kitāb al-nafs li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs)
[32] Commentary on the Parva naturalia / Talḫīṣ al-ḥiss wa-l-maḥsūs. Sevilla, 13. Rabīʿ al-ʾāḫar 565 [ca. 01/04/1170]
[edit]
Treatises on the Intellect
[33] Enquiry whether the intellect in us, named the material intellect, is able to know in the end the separate forms or not =Epistle on the possibility of conjunction / Kitāb fī l-faḥṣ hal yumkin al-ʿaql ʾallaḏī fīnā wa-huwa al-musammā bi-l-hayūlānī ʾan yaʿqila al-ṣuwar al-mufāriqa bi-ʾāḫirihī ʾau lā yumkin ḏālika wa-huwa al-maṭlūb ʾallaḏī kāna ʾArisṭūṭālīs waʿadanā bi-l-faḥṣ ʿanhū fī kitāb al-nafs (Aka: ʾIggeret ʾefšarut ha-debequt)
[34] Chapter on the conjunction of the separate intellect with man / Maqāla fī ttiṣāl al-ʿaql al-mufāriq bi-l-ʾinsān (Aka: Masʾala fī ʿilm al-nafs suʾila ʿanhā fa-ʾajāba fīha; Epistola de connexione intellectus abstracti cum homine)
[35] Chapter on the conjunction of intellect with man / Maqāla fī ttiṣāl al-ʿaql bi-l-ʾinsān (Aka: Maqāla ʾaiḍan fī ttiṣāl al-ʿaql bi-l-ʾinsān; Maqāla fī ḏālika ʾaiḍan)
[36] Chapter on the intellect / Maqāla fī l-ʿaql (Aka: Maqāla ʾuḫrā fī ʿilm al-nafs ʾaiḍan)
[37] Commentary on Alexander's treatise on the intellect / Šarḥ maqālat al-ʾIskandar fī l-ʿaql
[38] Commentary on Avempace's epistle on the conjunction of the intellect with man / Šarḥ risālat ittiṣāl al-ʿaql bi-l-ʾinsān li-bn al-Ṣāʾiġ
[edit]
ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Rušd (son of Averroes)
[39] On whether the active intellect unites with the material intellect whilst it is clothed with the body / Hal yattaṣilu bi-l-ʿaql al-hayūlānī al-ʿaql al-faʿʿāl wa-huwa multabis bi-l-jism
[edit]
Anonymous
[40] De animæ beatudine / Tractatus Aueroys de perfectione naturali intellectus secundum mentem philosophi
[edit]
Metaphysics
[edit]
Commentaries
[41] Short Commentary on the Metaphysics / Jawāmiʿ kitāb mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa (Part of: Jawāmiʿ kutub ʾArisṭūṭālīs fī l-ṭabīʿīyāt wa-l-ʾilāhīyāt; Al-gawāmiʿ fī l-falsafa)
[42] Middle Commentary on the Metaphysics / Talḫīṣ mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa (Aka: Talḫīṣ kitāb mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs; Kitāb talḫīṣ mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa li-ʾArisṭūṭālīs; Averrois in septem libros media expositio ab Hælia Cretensi in latinum conversa, Ante hac nunquam excusa, summis vigiliis elaborata) Cordova, 25. Rabīʿ al-ʾāḫar 570 [11/23/1174].
[43] Long Commentary on the Metaphysics / Šarḥ mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿa.
[edit]
Practical Philosophy
[44] Middle Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics
[45] Epitome of Plato's Republic
[edit]
Mathematics
[46] Epitome of the Almagest
[edit]
See also
List of Arab scientists and scholars
List of Islamic studies scholars
[edit]
Notes
^ H-Net Review: Eric Ormsby on Averroes (Ibn Rushd): His Life, Works and Influence
^ a b Majid Fakhry (2001). Averroes: His Life, Works and Influence. Oneworld Publications. ISBN 1851682694.
^ Alain de Libera, Averroès et l'averroïsme, PUF, 1991, p.121.
^ Robert Irwin (2006). Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and its Discontents. The Overlook Press. ISBN 9781585678358.
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Ahmad, Jamil (September 1994), "Ibn Rushd", Monthly Renaissance 4 (9), retrieved 2008-10-14
^ Bynum, WF & Bynum, Helen (2006), Dictionary of Medical Biography, Greenwood Press, ISBN 0-31-332877-3
^ Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Oliver Leaman (1996), History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 314, Routledge, ISBN 0415131596.
^ "Inventions et decouvertes au Moyen-Age", Samuel Sadaune, p.112
^ Irwin, Jones (Autumn 2002), "Averroes' Reason: A Medieval Tale of Christianity and Islam", The Philosopher LXXXX (2)
^ Nash, Elizabeth (2005), Seville, Cordoba, and Granada: A Cultural History, Oxford University Press US, p. 202, ISBN 0195182030
^ Owen Gingerich (April 1986). "Islamic astronomy", Scientific American 254 (10), p. 74.
^ Roger Ariew (1992). "Theory of Comets at Paris During the Seventeenth Century", Journal of the History of Ideas 53 (3), p. 355-372.
^ Prof. Hamed A. Ead, Averroes As A Physician, University of Cairo.
^ For Aquinas's innovation in extending Averroes' purely celestial inertia to the sublunar region and thus universalising inertia, see Bk4.L12.534-6 of Aquinas's Commentary on Aristotle's Physics Routledge 1963.
^ See Duhem's analysis of this development - St Thomas Aquinas and the Concept of Mass- on p378-9 of Roger Ariew's 1985 Medieval Cosmology, an extract also to be found online at <http://ftp.colloquium.co.uk/~barrett/void.html>. But Duhem notably fails to accord Averroes his originating innovatory due compared with Avempace and Aquinas, as more clearly accorded by Sorabji's 1988 Matter, Space and Motion p284. Duhem was originally refuting Mach's claim in his Science of Mechanics that Newton first discovered the crucial notion of inertial resistant mass in the 17th century. Mach's error was surprisingly still repeated by the self-professed 'Duhemian gradualist' Bernard Cohen a century later in his 2002 The Cambridge Companion to Newton article Newton's concepts of force and mass, p59.
^ See e.g. p144 of Koyre's 1939/78 Galilean Studies. Koyre also claimed Kepler's notion of inertia "prevented him from laying the foundations of the new dynamics". But in fact the very notion of bodies having an inherent inertial resistant mass without which forced motion would be instantaneous was also fundamental in Newton's dynamics, in which otherwise the acceleration caused by an impressed force and the speed of gravitational free-fall would be infinite if m = 0, since a α F/m. Rather it was Newton who only then revised it slightly to exclude resistance to uniform straight motion, a purely ideal form of motion in Newton's cosmology. Thus Newton commented on his modification of Kepler's force of inertia in his annotation on his Definition 3 of the inherent force of inertia in his copy of the 1713 second edition of the Principia as follows: "I do not mean Kepler's force of inertia, by which bodies tend toward rest, but a force of remaining in the same state either of resting or of moving." See p404 Cohen & Whitman 1999 Principia
^ This refutes the Kantian and Baconian experimentalist account of the origins of Newtonian physics, as distinct from celestial observation.
^ See The significance of the theory of impetus for scholastic natural philosophy, Chapter 4 of On the threshold of exact science: Selected writings of Annaliese Maier on Late Medieval Natural Philosophy Steven Sargent (Ed) University of Pennsylvania Press 1982
^ See e.g. Moody's statement contra Maier "What I have found in Buridan's writings...is the repeated assertion that "prime matter" does not resist motion..." in footnote 7 p32 of his essay "Galileo and his precursors" in Galileo Reappraised, Golino (ed), University of California Press 1966.
^ a b Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Shehzad Saleem (translator) (September 2002), "The Law of Evidence", Monthly Renaissance 12 (9), retrieved 2008-10-14
^ Dr. Zaheer, Khalid (September 2004), "Why is Riba Al-Fadl Unacceptable?", Monthly Renaissance 14 (9), retrieved 2008-10-14 (cf. Dr. Zaheer, Khalid (1994), An Enquiry into the Basic Concept of Banking as Perceived by the Spirit of Islamic Economic Justice, University of Wales)
^ Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Shehzad Saleem (translator) (September 2002), "Islamic Punishments: Some Misconceptions", Monthly Renaissance 12 (9), retrieved 2008-10-14
^ History of logic: Arabic logic, Encyclopædia Britannica.
^ Dr. Albert Zaki Iskandar, Ibn ul-Nafees has Dissected the Human Body, Encyclopedia of Islamic World.
^ Sami Hamarneh (1970), "Averroes, Contra Galenum by J. Christoph Burgel", Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (2), p. 406.
^ Savage-Smith, Emilie (1995), "Attitudes Toward Dissection in Medieval Islam", Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences (Oxford University Press) 50 (1): 67–110 [93], doi:10.1093/jhmas/50.1.67
^ A. Al Dayela and N. al-Zuhair (2006), "Single drug therapy in the treatment of male sexual/erectile dysfunction in Islamic medicine", Urology 68 (1), p. 253-254.
^ Martin-Araguz, A.; Bustamante-Martinez, C.; Fernandez-Armayor, Ajo V.; Moreno-Martinez, J. M. (2002). "Neuroscience in al-Andalus and its influence on medieval scholastic medicine", Revista de neurología 34 (9), p. 877-892.
^ Lindberg, David C. (1981), Theories of Vision from Al-kindi to Kepler, University of Chicago Press, p. 238, ISBN 0226482359
^ Ernest A. Moody (June 1951). "Galileo and Avempace: The Dynamics of the Leaning Tower Experiment (II)", Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (3), p. 375-422 [375].
^ Ernest A. Moody (June 1951). "Galileo and Avempace: The Dynamics of the Leaning Tower Experiment (II)", Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (3), p. 375-422 [380].
^ See e.g. Sorabji 1988 Matter,Space and Motion p284
^ Girl Power, ABC News
^ Black, Edwin (2004). Banking on Baghdad: Inside Iraq's 7,000 Year History of War, Profit, and Conflict. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 34. ISBN 047170895X.
^ Hale, Sarah Josepha Buell (1853). Woman's Record: Or, Sketches of All Distinguished Women, from "The Beginning Till A.D. 1850, Arranged in Four Eras, with Selections from Female Writers of Every Age. Harper Brothers. pp. 120.
^ H. Chad Hillier (2006). Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126 - 1198 CE), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
^ Abdel Wahab El Messeri. Episode 21: Ibn Rushd, Everything you wanted to know about Islam but was afraid to Ask, Philosophia Islamica.
^ Fauzi M. Najjar (Spring, 1996). The debate on Islam and secularism in Egypt, Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ).
^ George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science
(cf. Prof. Hamed A. Ead, Averroes As A Physician)
^ Renan, Averroès et l'averroïsme: "the history of 'Averroism' is the history of a misunderstanding".
[edit]
Further reading Wikisource has original works written by or about: Ibn Rushd

Averroes, Translated by Ralph Lerner (2005). Averroes On Plato's Republic. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8975-X.
Kogan, Barry S. (1985). Averroes and the Metaphysics of Causation. SUNY Press. ISBN 0-88706-063-3.
Leaman, Olivier (1998). Averroes and his philosophy. Routledge. ISBN 0-7007-0675-5.
Baffioni, Carmela (2004). Averroes and the Aristotelian Heritage. Guida Editori. ISBN 88-7188-862-6.
Sorabji, Richard Matter, Space and Motion Duckworth 1988
[edit]
External links
"Averroes". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.
"Averroes". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.
Averroes, Islamic Philosophy Online
Averroes Database, including full bibliography of his works
Averroes Foundation for Faith and Reason in Islam
"Averroes", BBC Radio 4 discussion, 5 October 2006, "In Our Time" programme.
Averroes at The Online Library of Liberty
The Incoherence of the Incoherence translation by Simon van den Bergh. [N.B.: This also contains a translation of most of the tahafut as the refutations are mostly commentary of al-Ghazali statements that were quoted verbatim.][show]

Links to related articles

Categories: 1126 births | 1198 deaths | 12th-century philosophers | Al-Andalus | Andalusian people | Arab philosophers | Arab scientists | Arab physicians | Aristotelian philosophers | Commentators on Aristotle | Commentators on Plato | Malikis | Moorish writers | Muslim philosophers | People from Córdoba, Spain | Spanish philosophers | Berber scholars

Euthyphro dilemma

Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:55:09 +0100

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" The dilemma has continued to present a problem for theists since Plato presented it and it is still an object of theological and philosophical debate.Contents [hide]
1 The dilemma
2 In monotheism
2.1 Explanation of the dilemma
2.2 Attempts to resolve the dilemma
2.2.1 False-dilemma response
2.2.2 Necessary and contingent moral values?
2.2.3 Different meanings of "moral"
3 See also
4 References

[edit]
The dilemma

Socrates and Euthyphro are discussing the nature of piety in Euthyphro. Euthyphro proposes (6e) that the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) is the same thing as what is loved by the gods (τὸ θεοφιλές), but Socrates finds a problem with this proposal, since the gods may disagree among themselves (7e). Euthyphro then restricts his definition to include only as pious what is loved by all gods unanimously (9e).

But we cannot likewise say that the reason why the pious is pious is that the gods love it. For, as Socrates presumes and Euthyphro agrees, the gods love the pious because it is pious (both parties agree on this, the first horn of the dilemma). And we cannot say that the gods love the pious because it is pious, and then add that the pious is pious because the gods love it, for this would be circular reasoning and create a chicken-and-egg problem.

To understand the difficulties the philosophers experience to come to terms with the adjective "ὅσιος", it is important to note that it carries a double meaning of "hallowed" and "profane": "hallowed" in the sense that what is "ὅσιος" is dependent on the divine, as opposed to "δίκαιος", which is justice as promulgated by human lawmakers, and "profane" in the sense that what is "ὅσιος" are actions which take place in the sphere of human relations, as opposed to "ἱερός", which refers anything religiously dedicated to the gods. Thus, the very term "ὅσιος" embodies the crux of the dilemma, viz., the attempt to separate "piety" from the divine sphere as something that can stand on its own in the human sphere.
[edit]
In monotheism

The monotheistic version of the dilemma, replacing τὸ ὅσιον with "moral" or "good", and οἱ θεοί with "God" is still the object of theological and philosophical debate. It can be worded as follows: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
[edit]
Explanation of the dilemma

The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is moral is commanded by God because it is moral) implies that morality is independent of God and, indeed, that God is bound by morality just as his creatures are. God then becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge.

The second horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is moral is moral because it is commanded by God, known as divine command theory) runs into three main problems. First, it implies that what is good is arbitrary, based merely upon God's whim; if God had created the world to include the values that rape, murder, and torture were virtues, while mercy and charity were vices, then they would have been. Second, it implies that calling God good makes no non-tautological sense (or, at best, that one is simply saying that God is consistent and not hypocritical). Third, it involves a form of reasoning that G.E. Moore classified as a naturalistic fallacy; to explain the claim that murder is wrong (or the proscription that one should not commit murder), in terms of what God has or hasn't said is to argue from what Moore classified as a putative fact about the world to what Moore classified as a value (see is-ought problem).
[edit]
Attempts to resolve the dilemma

The Euthyphro dilemma has troubled philosophers and theologians ever since Plato first propounded it. While both horns (and their aforesaid consequences) have had their adherents, the Natural Law Theory probably being the more popular, some philosophers have tried to find a middle ground and, in doing so, maintained a non-arbitrariness to a nonetheless religious morality.
[edit]
False-dilemma response

Christian philosophers, starting with Thomas Aquinas have often answered that the dilemma is false: yes, God commands something because it is good, but the reason it is good is that "good is an essential part of God's nature". So goodness is grounded in God's character and merely expressed in moral commands. Therefore whatever a good God commands will always be good.

Fr. Owen Carroll notes that the medieval philosophical tradition Realism, to which Aquinas belonged, assumes that the model that God used when creating the universe was within Himself so that the goodness of this world reflects and participates in some limited way and extent in the infinite goodness of God's own divine nature. The position of the opposing school of Nominalism maintains that the model that God used when creating the universe is outside of God and thus the goodness of this world is alien to the goodness of God Himself. The moral consequence of the latter position is that whatever God wills is good, even if it is inherently contradictory and morally arbitrary according to the light of human reason. Thus if God wills the damnation of any individual person the entirety of his creation is good simply because God wills it. From this perspective the definitive human virtue is an unquestioning obedience to the divine will, even if that divine will commands one to perform an act which God will then immediately condemn as evil and meriting eternal damnation. One might note that one would seem to be left with no objective standard by which to judge what is and what is not God's will. Any claims to immediate divine inspiration as imparting a knowledge of the divine will is ultimately authoritative only for the claiment and those who choose to believe him and it has to be assumed that any such claim is subject to the usual subconscious psychological forces that underlie and distort the human subjective consciousness, i.e., what traditional Christian ascetic tradition designates as the 'passions'. Fr. Carroll notes that the position that whatever God wills is good simply because God wills it is more common and historically prominent in Islamic theology and philosophy, but enters and influences Western theology and philosophy through the influence of contemporary medieval Islamic philosophical writings on Nominalism.

Some followers of the Realist approach, following Aquinas and earlier readers of Plato such as Plotinus, say that "God" is in whole or part the definition of goodness itself. John Frame and others say this avoids the naturalistic fallacy because the source of God's whims or commands is in some way the definition of good for everybody. This view led Anselm of Canterbury to say that God exists outside of all motion or change and does not really feel passions such as love. It only seems that way to our finite minds. Aristotle had proposed in his Metaphysics a similar view of Gods who feel no emotion towards the world or their worshipers, but inspire imitation.

Gnosticism and other dualistic schools similarly postulate that God is identical with goodness, which turns the dilemma into a tautology, equating the God of the universe and creation as the demiurge with the gnostic God as the true God or God of Good.
[edit]
Necessary and contingent moral values?

Some modern philosophers have also attempted to find a compromise. For example, Richard Swinburne has argued that moral values fall into two categories: the necessary and the contingent. God can decide to create the world in many different ways, each of which grounds a particular set of contingent values; with regard to these, then, the divine command theory is the correct explanation. Certain values, however, such as the immorality of rape, murder, and torture, hold in all possible worlds, so it makes no sense to say that God could have created them differently; with regard to these values, the first horn of the dilemma is the best explanation.
[edit]
Different meanings of "moral"

In developing what he calls a "modified divine-command theory", R.M. Adams distinguishes between two meanings of ethical terms like "right" and "wrong":
the meaning that atheists conceive (which in fact Adams explains in roughly emotivist terms)
the meaning that has its place in religious discourse (that is, commanded or forbidden by God).

Because God is claimed benevolent, the two meanings could coincide; God is, however, free to command other than he has done, and if he had chosen to command, for example, that murder was morally right, then the two meanings would break apart, effectively choosing the second horn of the dilemma: God just happens to command what would be good in any case ("eutheism"), but allowing for a hypothetical scenario where God decides to become malevolent ("dystheism").
[edit]
See also
Morality
[edit]
References
Robert Merrihew Adams Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics (2002: New York, Oxford University Press) ISBN 0-19-515371-5
Jan Aertsen Medieval philosophy and the transcendentals: the case of Thomas Aquinas (2004: New York, Brill) ISBN 90-04-10585-9
John M. Frame Euthyphro, Hume, and the Biblical God retrieved February 13, 2007 from http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1993Euthyphro.htm
Plato Euthyphro (any edition; the Penguin version can be found in The Last Days of Socrates ISBN 0-14-044037-2) or
Euthyphro by Plato from Project Gutenberg
Paul Helm [ed.] Divine Commands and Morality (1981: Oxford, Oxford University Press) ISBN 0-19-875049-8
Peter J. King, Morality & religion I (PDF file)
Greg Koukl, Euthyphro's Dilemma, Stand to Reason commentary, 2002
Norman Kretzmann “Abraham, Isaac, and Euthyphro: God and the basis of morality” (in Eleonore Stump & Michael J. Murray [edd] Philosophy of Religion: The Big Questions (1999: Oxford: Blackwell) ISBN 0-631-20604-3
Steve Lovell, C.S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma, 2002.
God and Morality - An analysis of the Euthyphro dilemma
See also United States v. Willow River Power Co.[hide]
v • d • e
Philosophy of religion

Related articles:
Criticism of religion • Exegesis • History of religion • Religion • Religious philosophy • Theology • Relationship between religion and science • Religion and politics • Faith and rationality • more...

Concepts in religion
Afterlife • Euthyphro dilemma • Faith • Intelligent design • Miracle • Problem of evil • Religious belief • Soul • Theodicy

Theories of religion
Acosmism • Agnosticism • Animism • Antireligion • Atheism • Brights • Dharmism • Deism • Divine command theory • Dualism • Esotericism • Exclusivism • Existentialism (Christian, Agnostic, Atheist) • Feminist theology • Gnosticism • Henotheism • Humanism (Religious, Secular, Christian) • Inclusivism • Monism • Monotheism • Mysticism • Naturalism (Metaphysical, Religious, Humanistic) • New Age • Nondualism • Nontheism • Pandeism • Pantheism • Polytheism • Process theology • Religious fundamentalism • Spiritualism • Shamanism • Taoic • Theism • Transcendentalism • more ...

Philosophers of religion
Albrecht Ritschl • Alvin Plantinga • Anselm of Canterbury • Antony Flew • Augustine of Hippo • Averroes • Baron d'Holbach • Baruch Spinoza • Blaise Pascal • Boethius • David Hume • Desiderius Erasmus • Emil Brunner • Ernst Cassirer • Ernst Haeckel • Ernst Troeltsch • Friedrich Schleiermacher • Gaunilo of Marmoutiers • Georg Hegel • George Santayana • Harald Høffding • Heraclitus • Immanuel Kant • J. L. Mackie • Johann Gottfried Herder • Karl Barth • Ludwig Feuerbach • Maimonides • Paul Tillich • Pico della Mirandola • Ramakrishna • Reinhold Niebuhr • René Descartes • Richard Swinburne • Robert Merrihew Adams • Rudolf Otto • Sigmund Freud • Søren Kierkegaard • Thomas Aquinas • Thomas Chubb • William Alston • William James • W.K. Clifford • William L. Rowe • William Whewell • William Wollaston • more ...

Existence of god For Beauty · Christological · Consciousness · Cosmological · Degree · Desire · Experience · Love · Miracles · Morality · Ontological · Pascal's Wager · Proper basis · Reason · Teleological · Transcendental · Witness

Against 747 Gambit · Atheist's Wager · Evil · Free will · Hell · Inconsistent revelations · Nonbelief · Noncognitivism · Occam's Razor · Omnipotence · Poor design · Russell's teapot · Transcendental

Portal · Category · Task Force · Discussion · Changes

Categories: Philosophy of religion | Religious ethics | Theodicy

Agnotism

Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:53:29 +0100

Agnosticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Certainty series:
Agnosticism
Belief
Certainty
Determinism
Doubt
Epistemology
Justification
Estimation
Fallibilism
Fatalism
Nihilism
Probability
Solipsism
Uncertainty
This box: view • talk • edit

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1] It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people,[3] using agnostic in the sense of noncommittal.[4][dubious – discuss] However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion.

Many philosophers and thinkers have written about agnosticism, including Thomas Henry Huxley, Albert Einstein, Robert G. Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell. Religious scholars who wrote about agnosticism are Peter Kreeft, Blaise Pascal and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later elected as Pope Benedict XVI.Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Definition of the term according to Thomas Henry Huxley
3 Qualifying agnosticism
4 Types of agnosticism
4.1 Thomas Henry Huxley
4.2 Robert G. Ingersoll
4.3 Bertrand Russell
5 Religious scholars
6 See also
7 Notes
8 References
9 External links

[edit]
Etymology

'Agnostic' was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860 to describe his philosophy which rejects Gnosticism, by which he meant not simply the early 1st millennium religious group, but all claims to spiritual or mystical knowledge.[4][dubious – discuss]

Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge." Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism. Huxley used the term in a broad sense.

In recent years, use of the word to mean "not knowable" is apparent in scientific literature in psychology and neuroscience,[5] and with a meaning close to "independent", in technical and marketing literature, e.g. "platform agnostic" or "hardware agnostic".
[edit]
Definition of the term according to Thomas Henry Huxley

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle." [6]

"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him." [7]

Quotations from the book "Aphorisms and Reflections" where Henrietta A. Huxley, widow of Thomas Henry Huxley gathers multiple volumes of notes and esays from Mr. Huxley [8]
[edit]
Qualifying agnosticism

Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.[9]. He asserted that the fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (i.e. tautologies such as "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three angles"). All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." For instance, when one says, "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy," one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the earth might be destroyed, or one might die before the alarm goes off).

The Catholic Church sees merit in examining what it calls Partial Agnosticism, specifically those systems that "do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the Unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge."[10] However, the Church is historically opposed to a full denial of the ability of human reason to know God. The Council of the Vatican, relying on biblical scripture, declares that "God, the beginning and end of all, can, by the natural light of human reason, be known with certainty from the works of creation" (Const. De Fide, II, De Rev.)[11]
[edit]
Types of agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."
Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)
the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]
Agnostic atheism
the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[12]
Agnostic theism (also called "spiritual agnosticism")
the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)
Ignosticism
the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[13][dubious – discuss]
Religious agnosticism
the view that the agnostic principle can be mixed either with at least some minimum of affirmative doctrine, or with the type of religiousness that makes no very substantial doctrinal demands.

[edit]
Thomas Henry Huxley

Thomas Henry Huxley.
See also: Thomas Henry Huxley

Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism, but the terms agnostic and agnosticism were created by Huxley to sum up his thoughts on contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned" (Hamilton) and the "unknowable" (Herbert Spencer). It is important, therefore, to discover Huxley's own views on the matter. Though Huxley began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinions had taken shape some time before that date. In a letter of September 23, 1860, to Charles Kingsley, Huxley discussed his views extensively:
I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter...
It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions...
That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth.

And again, to the same correspondent, May 6, 1863:
I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

Of the origin of the name agnostic to describe this attitude, Huxley gave the following account:[14]
When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

Huxley's agnosticism is believed to be a natural consequence of the intellectual and philosophical conditions of the 1860s, when clerical intolerance was trying to suppress scientific discoveries which appeared to clash with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis and other established Jewish and Christian doctrines. Agnosticism should not, however, be confused with natural theology, deism, pantheism, or other science positive forms of theism.

By way of clarification, Huxley states, "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889). Although A. W. Momerie has noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty, Huxley's usual definition goes beyond mere honesty to insist that these metaphysical issues are fundamentally unknowable.
[edit]
Robert G. Ingersoll

Robert G. Ingersoll.
See also: Robert G. Ingersoll

Robert G. Ingersoll, an Illinois lawyer and politician who evolved into a well-known and sought-after orator in 19th century America, has been referred to as the "Great Agnostic."

In an 1896 lecture titled Why I Am An Agnostic, Ingersoll related why he was an agnostic:
Is there a supernatural power—an arbitrary mind—an enthroned God—a supreme will that sways the tides and currents of the world—to which all causes bow? I do not deny. I do not know—but I do not believe. I believe that the natural is supreme—that from the infinite chain no link can be lost or broken—that there is no supernatural power that can answer prayer—no power that worship can persuade or change—no power that cares for man.
I believe that with infinite arms Nature embraces the all—that there is no interference—no chance—that behind every event are the necessary and countless causes, and that beyond every event will be and must be the necessary and countless effects.
Is there a God? I do not know. Is man immortal? I do not know. One thing I do know, and that is, that neither hope, nor fear, belief, nor denial, can change the fact. It is as it is, and it will be as it must be.

In the conclusion of the speech he simply sums up the agnostic position as:
We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know.
[edit]
Bertrand Russell
See also: Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell's pamphlet, Why I Am Not a Christian, based on a speech delivered in 1927 and later included in a book of the same title, is considered a classic statement of agnosticism. The essay briefly lays out Russell’s objections to some of the arguments for the existence of God before discussing his moral objections to Christian teachings. He then calls upon his readers to "stand on their own two feet and look fair and square at the world," with a "fearless attitude and a free intelligence."

In 1939, Russell gave a lecture on The existence and nature of God, in which he characterized himself as an atheist. He said:
The existence and nature of God is a subject of which I can discuss only half. If one arrives at a negative conclusion concerning the first part of the question, the second part of the question does not arise; and my position, as you may have gathered, is a negative one on this matter.[15]

However, later in the same lecture, discussing modern non-anthropomorphic concepts of God, Russell states:
That sort of God is, I think, not one that can actually be disproved, as I think the omnipotent and benevolent creator can.[16]

In Russell's 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? (subtitled A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas), he ruminates on the problem of what to call himself:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

In his 1953 essay, What Is An Agnostic? Russell states:
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

However, later in the essay, Russell says:
I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence.
[edit]
Religious scholars

Most theistic thinkers repudiate the validity of agnosticism, or certain forms of agnosticism. Religious scholars in the three Abrahamic religions affirm the possibility of knowledge, even of metaphysical realities such as God and the soul,[17] because human intelligence, they assert, has a non-material, spiritual element. They affirm that “not being able to see or hold some specific thing does not necessarily negate its existence,” as in the case of gravity, entropy, or reason and thought.[18]

Blaise Pascal

Religious scholars, such as Brown, Tacelli, and Kreeft, argue that agnosticism does not take into account the numerous evidence of his existence that God has placed in his creation.[18] And for this, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli cite 20 arguments for God’s existence.[19] They assert that agnosticism's demand for scientific evidence through laboratory testing is in effect asking God, the supreme being, to become man’s servant.[20] They argue that the question of God should be treated differently from other knowable objects in that "this question regards not that which is below us, but that which is above us."[21] Christian Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that, even if there were truly no evidence for God, agnostics should consider what is now known as Pascal’s Wager: the infinite expected value of acknowledging God is always greater than the finite expected value of not acknowledging his existence, and thus it is a safer “bet” to choose God.[22]

According to Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, agnosticism, more specifically strong agnosticism, is reasoning that limits and contradicts itself in claiming the power of reason to know scientific truth, but not religious or philosophical truths.[21][23] He blames the exclusion of reasoning from religion and ethics for the dangerous pathologies of religion and science such as human and ecological disasters.[21][23][24] “Agnosticism,” said Ratzinger, “is always the fruit of a refusal of that knowledge which is in fact offered to man [...] The knowledge of God has always existed.”[23] He asserted that agnosticism is a choice of comfort, pride, dominion, and utility over truth, and is opposed by the following attitudes: the keenest self-criticism, humble listening to the whole of existence, the persistent patience and self-correction of the scientific method, a readiness to be purified by the truth.[21]

According to theistic scholars, agnosticism is impossible in actual practice, since a person can live only either as if God did not exist (etsi Deus non daretur), or as if God did exist (etsi Deus daretur).[25][26][27] These scholars believe that each day in a person’s life is an unavoidable step towards death, and thus not to decide for or against God, whom they view as the all-encompassing foundation, purpose, and meaning of life, is to decide in favor of atheism.[25][22]
[edit]
See also Atheism portal

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic theism
Asimov's Guide to the Bible
Atheism
Existentialism
Fallibilism
Gnosticism
Ietsism
James I of England
Jefferson Bible
List of agnostics
Laicism
Nihilism
Rationalist movement
Relativism
Religiosity
Religious skepticism
Russell's teapot
Secularism
Skepticism
Solipsism
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
Wealth and agnosticism
[edit]
Notes
^ [1] Robert T. Carrol
^ [2] Austin Cline
^ Major Religions Ranked by Size
^ a b American Heritage Dictionary, 2000, under agnostic
^ Oxford English Dictionary, Additions Series, 1993
^ http://books.google.com/books?id=97DaE6BzKTsC&pg=PA41
^ http://books.google.com/books?id=97DaE6BzKTsC&pg=PA42
^ http://books.google.com/books?id=97DaE6BzKTsC&pg=PA12
^ Hume, David, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" (1748)
^ Agnosticism, II., Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent. [3]
^ Agnosticism, VIII., Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent.[4]
^ Cline, Austin. "Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference? Are they Alternatives to Each Other?". Retrieved 2006-09-24.
^ [5] Drange, Theodore (1998). "Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism". Internet Infidels. Retrieved on 2007-03-26.
^ Huxley, Thomas. Collected Essays. pp. 237–239. ISBN 1-85506-922-9.
^ Russell, Bertrand. Collected Papers, Vol 10. pp. 255.
^ Collected Papers, Vol. 10, p.258
^ Shed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas, Journal of Islamic Philosophy, p 21-22.
^ a b Laurence B. Brown (2007). "Religion of Islam: Agnosticism". Retrieved 2008-05-25.
^ Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God, from the Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald Tacelli, SJ, Intervarsity Press, 1994.
^ Ratzinger, Joseph (2007). Jesus of Nazareth. Random House.
^ a b c d Ratzinger, Joseph (2005). The Yes of Jesus Christ: Spiritual Exercises in Faith, Hope, and Love. Cross Roads Publishing.
^ a b "Argument from Pascal's Wager". 2007. Retrieved 2008-05-25.
^ a b c Ratzinger, Joseph (2004). Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief And World Religions. Ignatius Press.
^ Benedict XVI, Address at the University of Regensburg 2006
^ a b Sandro Magister (2007). "Habermas writes to Ratzinger and Ruini responds". Retrieved 2008-05-25.
^ "Why can’t I live my life as an agnostic?". 2007. Retrieved 2008-05-25.
^ Ratzinger, Joseph (2006). Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. Ignatius Press. ISBN 9781586171421.
[edit]
References
Man's Place In Nature, Thomas Huxley, ISBN 0-375-75847-X
Why I Am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell, ISBN 0-671-20323-1
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume, ISBN 0-14-044536-6
Language, Truth, and Logic, A.J. Ayer, ISBN 0-486-20010-8
Atheism, the Case Against God, George H. Smith, ISBN 0-87975-124-X
CIA estimate of religious affiliation by country uses "other", "none", or "unspecified" as descriptive terms
[edit]
External links Look up agnosticism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Agnosticism
Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article Agnosticism.

What Is An Agnostic? by Bertrand Russell, [1953].
Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell (March 6, 1927).
Why I Am An Agnostic by Robert G. Ingersoll, [1896].
Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Agnosticism
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
Agnosticism - from ReligiousTolerance.org
What do Agnostics Believe? - A Jewish perspective
Fides et Ratio – the relationship between faith and reason Karol Wojtyla [1998]
For a utilitarian analysis of religion, see The (F)Utility of Religion: Who Needs God(s)?–A Prospective Bible for Non-Believers at http://bradmusil.kramernet.org[show]
v • d • e
Irreligion

[show]
v • d • e
Philosophy of religion

Categories: Agnosticism | Atheism | Criticism of religion | Disengagement from religion | Secularism | Epistemological theories

Miracle

Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:48:04 +0100

Miracle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Miracles)
For other uses, see Miracle (disambiguation).

The Raising of Lazarus, (c. 1410) folio 171r from Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry. Musée Condé, France.

A miracle is a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can be attempted to be explained by divine intervention, and is sometimes associated with a miracle worker. Many folktales, religious texts, and people claim various events they refer to as "miraculous". People in different cultures have substantially different definitions of the word "miracle". Even within a specific religion there is often more than one of the term. Sometimes the term "miracle" may refer to the action of a supernatural being that is not a god. Thus, the term "divine intervention", by contrast, would refer specifically to the direct involvement of a deity.

In casual usage, "miracle" may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event, (such as the survival of a natural disaster) or even which regarded as "wonderful" regardless of its likelihood, such as birth. Other miracles might be: survival of a terminal illness, escaping a life threatening situation or 'beating the odds.'Contents [hide]
1 Miracles as supernatural acts
2 Miracles in religious texts
2.1 In the Hebrew Bible
2.2 In the New Testament
2.3 In the Qur'an
3 Miracles as events planned by God
4 Philosophers' explanations of miracles
4.1 Aristotelian and Neo-Aristotelian views of miracles
4.2 Baruch Spinoza's view of miracles
4.3 David Hume's views of miracles
4.4 Søren Kierkegaard's views of miracles
4.5 James Keller's views of miracles
5 Nonliteral interpretations of the text
6 As products of creative art and social acceptance
7 As misunderstood commonplace events
8 Claims of miracles
8.1 Religious groups
8.1.1 Catholic Church claims
8.1.2 Protestant claims
8.1.3 Hindu claims
8.2 Individuals
8.2.1 Buddha
8.2.2 Muhammad
8.2.3 Vespasian
8.2.4 Apollonius of Tyana
9 Miracles in other religions
10 Dismissal, Disbelief and Skepticism
11 See also
12 Notes and references
13 Bibliography
14 External links

[edit]
Miracles as supernatural acts

In this view, a miracle is a violation of normal laws of nature by some supernatural entity or unknown, outside force. Some scientist-theologians like Polkinghorne suggest that miracles are not violations of the laws of nature but "exploration of a new regime of physical experience."[1]

The logic behind an event being deemed a miracle varies significantly. Often a religious text, such as the Bible or Quran, states that a miracle occurred, and believers accept this as a fact. However, C.S. Lewis noted that one cannot believe a miracle occurred if one had already drawn a conclusion in one's mind that miracles are not possible at all. He cites[citation needed] the example of a woman he knew who had seen a ghost, who had discounted her experience; claiming it to be some sort of hallucination (because she did not believe in ghosts).

Many conservative religious believers hold that in the absence of a plausible, parsimonious scientific theory, the best explanation for these events is that they were performed by a supernatural being, and cite this as evidence for the existence of a god or gods. However, Richard Dawkins criticises this kind of thinking as a subversion of Occam's Razor.[2] Some adherents of monotheistic religions assert that miracles, if established, are evidence for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God.

Finally, miracles would contradict the hypothesis of the Non Overlapping Magisteria proposed by Stephen Jay Gould, in that they would both be evidence for supernatural beings in the theological magisterium, and also subject to scientific investigation.
[edit]
Miracles in religious texts
[edit]
In the Hebrew Bible

Descriptions of miracles (Hebrew Ness, נס) appear in the Tanakh.
[edit]
In the New Testament
See also Miracles attributed to Jesus.

The descriptions of most miracles in the Christian New Testament are often the same as the commonplace definition of the word: God intervenes in the laws of nature. In St John's Gospel the miracles are referred to as "signs" and the emphasis is on God demonstrating his underlying normal activity in remarkable ways.[3]

Jesus is recorded as having turned water into wine, fed a multitude by turning a loaf of bread into many loaves of bread, and raised the dead. Jesus is also described as rising from the dead himself, God his father having raised him. Jesus explains in the New Testament that miracles are performed by faith in God. "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, “move from here to there” and it will move." (Gospel of Matthew 17:20). After Jesus returned to heaven, the book of Acts records the disciples of Jesus praying to God to grant that miracles be done in his name, for the purpose of convincing onlookers that he is alive. (Acts 4:29-31). Other passages mention False prophets who will be able to perform miracles to deceive "even the elect of Christ" (Matthew 24:24, 2 Thes 2:9, Revelation 13:13).
[edit]
In the Qur'an

A 16th century Persian miniature painting celebrating Muhammad's ascent into the Heavens, a journey known as the Miraj. Muhammad's face is veiled, a common practice in Islamic art.
Main article: Islamic view of miracles

Miracle in the Qur'an can be defined as a supernatural intervention in the life of human beings.[4] According to this definition, Miracles are present "in a threefold sense: in sacred history, in connection with Muhammad himself and in relation to revelation."[4] The Qur'an does not use the technical Arabic word for miracle (Muʿd̲j̲iza) literally meaning "that by means of which [the Prophet] confounds, overwhelms, his opponents". It rather uses the term 'Ayah'(literally meaning sign).[5] The term Ayah is used in the Qur'an in the above mentioned threefold sense: it refers to the "verses" of the Qur'an (believed to be the divine speech in human language; presented by Muhammad as his chief Miracle); as well as to miracles of it and the signs(particularly those of creation).[4][5]

In order to defend the possibility of miracles and God's omnipotence against the encroachment of the independent secondary causes, some medieval Muslim theologians such as Al-Ghazali rejected the idea of cause and effect in essence, but accepted it as something that facilitates humankind's investigation and comprehension of natural processes. They argued that the nature was composed of uniform atoms that were "re-created" at every instant by God. Thus if the soil was to fall, God would have to create and re-create the accident of heaviness for as long as the soil was to fall. For Muslim theologians, the laws of nature were only the customary sequence of apparent causes: customs of God.[6]
[edit]
Miracles as events planned by God

In rabbinic Judaism, many rabbis mentioned in the Talmud held that the laws of nature were inviolable. The idea of miracles that contravened the laws of nature were hard to accept; however, at the same time they affirmed the truth of the accounts in the Tanakh. Therefore some explained that miracles were in fact natural events that had been set up by God at the beginning of time.

In this view, when the walls of Jericho fell, it was not because God directly brought them down. Rather, God planned that there would be an earthquake (or some such other natural disaster) at that place and time, so that the city would fall to the Israelites. Instances where rabbinic writings say that God made miracles a part of creation include Midrash Genesis Rabbah 5:45; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 21:6; and Ethics of the Fathers/Pirkei Avot 5:6.
[edit]
Philosophers' explanations of miracles

Fundamentally, no philosopher sticking to the scientific world view could explain the existence or not of miracles, since miracles are incompatible with it by definition. What philosophers discuss is the fact that they could be taken or not as a justification to the existence of supernatural forms of expression different from those given to reason and experience, or in minor intellectual approaches, to what is considered to be fair and unfair from a human God's perspective to be given to the common human claims for palliation of suffering.
[edit]
Aristotelian and Neo-Aristotelian views of miracles

Aristotle rejected the idea that God could or would intervene in the order of the natural world. Jewish neo-Aristotelian philosophers, who are still influential today, include Maimonides, Samuel ben Judah ibn Tibbon, and Gersonides. Directly or indirectly, their views are still prevalent in much of the religious Jewish community.
[edit]
Baruch Spinoza's view of miracles

In his Theologico-Political Treatise Spinoza claims that miracles are merely lawlike events whose causes we are ignorant of. We should not treat them as having no cause or of having a cause immediately available. Rather the miracle is for combating the ignorance it entails, like a political project. See Epistemic theory of miracles.
[edit]
David Hume's views of miracles

According to the philosopher David Hume, a miracle is "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.".[7] See Of Miracles.
[edit]
Søren Kierkegaard's views of miracles

The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, following Hume and Johann Georg Hamann, a Humean scholar, agrees with Hume's definition of a miracle as a transgression of a law of nature,[8] but Kierkegaard, writing as his pseudonym Johannes Climacus, regulates any historical reports to be less than certain, including historical reports of such miracle transgressions, as all historical knowledge is always doubtful and open to approximation.[9]
[edit]
James Keller's views of miracles

James Keller, along with many other philosophers, states that "The claim that God has worked a miracle implies that God has singled out certain persons for some benefit which many others do not receive implies that God is unfair.” [10] An example would be "If God intervenes to save your life in a car crash, then what was He doing in Auschwitz?". Thus an all-powerful, all-knowing and just God, predicated in Christianity, would not perform miracles.
[edit]
Nonliteral interpretations of the text

These views are held by both classical and modern thinkers.

In Numbers 22 is the story of Balaam and the talking donkey. Many hold that for miracles such as this, one must either assert the literal truth of this biblical story, or one must then reject the story as false. However, some Jewish commentators (e.g. Saadiah Gaon and Maimonides) hold that stories such as these were never meant to be taken literally in the first place. Rather, these stories should be understood as accounts of a prophetic experience, which are dreams or visions. (Of course, such dreams and visions could themselves be considered miracles.)

Joseph H. Hertz, a 20th century Jewish biblical commentator, writes that these verses "depict the continuance on the subconscious plane of the mental and moral conflict in Balaam's soul; and the dream apparition and the speaking donkey is but a further warning to Balaam against being misled through avarice to violate God's command."
[edit]
As products of creative art and social acceptance

In this view, miracles do not really occur. Rather, they are the product of creative story tellers. They use them to embellish a hero or incident with a theological flavor. Using miracles in a story allows characters and situations to become bigger than life, and to stir the emotions of the listener more than the mundane and ordinary.
[edit]
As misunderstood commonplace events

Littlewood's law states that individuals can expect miracles to happen to them, at the rate of about one per month. By its definition, seemingly miraculous events are actually commonplace. In other words, miracles do not exist, but are rather examples of low probability events that are bound to happen by chance from time to time.
[edit]
Claims of miracles

C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, and other Christians have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible. For example, C.S. Lewis says that a miracle is something that comes totally out of the blue. If for thousands of years a woman can become pregnant only by sexual intercourse with a man, then if she were to become pregnant without a man, it would be a miracle.[11][12][13]
[edit]
Religious groups
[edit]
Catholic Church claims
See also: Marian apparition, Stigmata, and Incorruptibility

The Catholic Church recognizes miracles as being works of God, either directly or through the prayers and intercession of a specific Saint or Saints. There is usually a specific purpose connected to a miracle, e.g. the conversion of a person or persons to the Catholic faith or the construction of a church desired by God. The Church tries to be very cautious to approve the validity of putative miracles. It maintains particularly stringent requirements in validating the miracle's authenticity.[14] The process is overseen by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.[15]

The Catholic Church claims to have confirmed the validity of a number of miracles, some of them occurring in modern times and having withstood the test of modern scientific scrutiny. Among the more notable miracles approved by the Church are several Eucharistic miracles wherein the Sacred Host is transformed visibly into Christ's living Flesh and Blood, bleeds, hovers in the air, radiates light, and/or displays the image of Christ. The first example of the Host being visibly changed into human flesh and blood occurred at Lanciano, Italy around 700 A.D. Unlike some miracles of a more transient nature, the Flesh and Blood remain in Lanciano to this day, having been scientifically examined as recently as 1971.

According to 17th-century documents, a young Spanish man's leg was miraculously restored to him in 1640 after having been amputated two and a half years earlier[16] (see miracle of Calanda).

Another miracle claimed valid by the Church is the Miracle of the Sun, which occurred near Fátima, Portugal on October 13, 1917. Anywhere between 70,000 and 100,000 people, who were gathered at a cove near Fátima, witnessed the sun dim, change colors, spin, dance about in the sky, and appear to plummet to earth, radiating great heat in the process. After the ten-minute event, the ground and the people's clothing, which had been drenched by a previous rainstorm, were both dry.

In addition to these, the Catholic Church attributes miraculous causes to many otherwise inexplicable phenomena on a case-by-case basis. Only after all other possible explanations have proven inadequate may the Church assume Divine intervention and declare the miracle worthy of veneration by the faithful. The Church does not, however, enjoin belief in any extra-Scriptural miracle as an article of faith or as necessary to salvation.
[edit]
Protestant claims

There have been numerous claims of miracles in Christendom. Mainline protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians accept spiritual gifts, including healing and the working of miracles. Some of the types of miracles that are claimed to occur in modern times are healings, casting out demons, multiplying food, etc.
[edit]
Hindu claims

The Hindu milk miracle was a phenomenon considered by many Hindus as a miracle which occurred on September 21, 1995.
[edit]
Individuals
[edit]
Buddha

Buddha is said to have performed miracles such as walking on water. (see Miracles of Gautama Buddha)
[edit]
Muhammad
Main article: Miracles of Muhammad
[edit]
Vespasian

The emperor Vespasian was credited with having performed several miracles. According to stories recorded by the Roman historians Dio Cassius and Tacitus, Vespasian worked several healing miracles, while visiting the shrine of Sarapis in Egypt. Among these miracles, Vespasian is credited with healing a blind man and restoring another man's crippled hand (Tacitus Histories 4.81).[17] It should be noted that these "miracles" of Vespasian were performed after consulting with human physicians that the infirmities were in fact within the reach of human skill (Tacitus Histories 4.81).[18]
[edit]
Apollonius of Tyana

According to his later biographer, Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana possessed extraordinary gifts, including innate knowledge of all languages, the ability to foretell the future, and the ability to see across great distances. Apollonius's possession of divine wisdom also endowed him with the ability to heal the sick and demon-possessed, and Philostratus narrates the miraculous quality of a number of these cures and exorcisms.[17]
[edit]
Miracles in other religions

Followers of the Indian gurus Sathya Sai Baba and Swami Premananda claim that they routinely perform miracles. The dominant view among skeptics is that these are predominantly sleight of hand or elaborate magic tricks.

Some modern religious groups claim ongoing occurrence of miraculous events. While some miracles have been proven to be fraudulent (see Peter Popoff for an example) others (such as the Paschal Fire in Jerusalem) have not proven susceptible to analysis. Some groups are far more cautious about proclaiming apparent miracles genuine than others, although official sanction, or the lack thereof, rarely has much effect on popular belief.
[edit]
Dismissal, Disbelief and Skepticism

Thomas Paine, one of the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution, wrote “All the tales of miracles, with which the Old and New Testament are filled, are fit only for impostors to preach and fools to believe”. [19]

Thomas Jefferson, principle author of the Declaration of Independence, edited a version of the Bible in which he removed sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists. [20] [21] Jefferson wrote, "The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent moralist, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, [footnote: e.g. The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, etc. —T.J.] invented by ultra-Christian sects, unauthorized by a single word ever uttered by him, is a most desirable object, and one to which Priestley has successfully devoted his labors and learning." [22]

Robert Ingersoll wrote, "Not 20 people were convinced by the reported miracles of Christ, and yet people of the nineteenth century were coolly asked to be convinced on hearsay by miracles which those who are supposed to have seen them refused to credit." [23]

Writer Christopher Hitchens, when asked for his favorite Bible story replied “Casting the first stone” is a lovely story, even though we’ve found out how much it wasn’t in the Bible to begin with. And the first of the miracles. Jesus changes water into wine. You can’t object to that." [24]

John Adams, second President of the United States, wrote, "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" [25]

Elbert Hubbard, American writer, publisher, artist, and philosopher, wrote "A miracle is an event described by those to whom it was told by people who did not see it." [26]

American Revolutionary War patriot and hero Ethan Allen wrote "In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue." [27]
[edit]
See also
Cessationism
A Course in Miracles
Divine Providence In Jewish thought
Intercession of saints
The Lourdes effect
Miracles at Lourdes
Miracles attributed to Jesus
Međugorje
Occasionalism
Signs and wonders
Spontaneous remission ("medical miracles")
Superstition
[edit]
Notes and references
^ John Polkinghorne Faith, Science and Understanding p59
^ The God Delusion
^ see e.g. Polkinghorne op cit. and any pretty well any commentary on the Gospel of John, such as William Temple Readings in St John's Gospel (see e.g. p 33) or Tom Wright's John for Everyone
^ a b c Denis Gril, Miracles, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an
^ a b A.J. Wensinck, Muʿd̲j̲iza, Encyclopedia of Islam
^ Robert G. Mourison, The Portrayal of Nature in a Medieval Qur’an Commentary, Studia Islamica, 2002
^ Miracles on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
^ [links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-4189(195110)31%3A4%3C274%3AHAK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2 Hume and Kierkegaard] by Richard Popkin
^ Kierkegaard on Miracles
^ Keller, James. “A Moral Argument against Miracles,” Faith and Philosophy. vol. 12, no 1. Jan 1995. 54-78
^ "Are Miracles Logically Impossible?". Come Reason Ministries, Convincing Christianity. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
^ "“Miracles are not possible,” some claim. Is this true?". ChristianAnswers.net. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
^ Paul K. Hoffman. "A Jurisprudential Analysis Of Hume’s “in Principal” Argument Against Miracles" (PDF). Christian Apologetics Journal, Volume 2, No. 1, Spring, 1999; Copyright ©1999 by Southern Evangelical Seminary. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
^ http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982807,00.html
^ http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=3664
^ Messori, Vittorio (2000): Il miracolo. Indagine sul più sconvolgente prodigio mariano. - Rizzoli: BUR.
^ a b Religion in the Roman World
^ [1]
^ The Writings of Thomas Paine, Volume 4, page 289, Putnam & Sons, 1896
^ Jeremy Kosselak (November 1998). The Exaltation of a Reasonable Deity: Thomas Jefferson’s BIBLE of Christianity. (Communicated by: Dr. Patrick Furlong). Indiana University South Bend - Department of History. http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/1999/Paper9.html. Retrieved 2007-02-19.
^ R.P. Nettelhorst. Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State. Quartz Hill School of Theology. http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm. Retrieved 2007-02-20.
^ Letter to William Short (31 October 1819), published in The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, Federal Edition, Paul Leicester Ford, ed., New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904, Vol. 12, pp. 141–142.
^ New York Times, Page 8, April 24, 1882
^ New York Magazine, Apr 26, 2007
^ John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
^ Elbert Hubbard, The Philistine (1909)
^ Ethan Allen, Reason, the Only Oracle of Man, 1784
Colin Brown. Miracles and the Critical Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. (Good survey).
Colin J. Humphreys, Miracles of Exodus. Harper, San Francisco, 2003.
Krista Bontrager, It’s a Miracle! Or, is it?
Eisen, Robert (1995). Gersonides on Providence, Covenant, and the Chosen People. State University of New York Press.
Goodman, Lenn E. (1985). Rambam: Readings in the Philosophy of Moses Maimonides. Gee Bee Tee.
Kellner, Menachem (1986). Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought. Oxford University Press.
C. S. Lewis. Miracles: A Preliminary Study. New York, Macmillan Co., 1947.
C. F. D. Moule (ed.). Miracles: Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History. London, A.R. Mowbray 1966, ©1965 (Good survey of Biblical miracles as well).
Graham Twelftree. Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study. IVP, 1999. (Best in its field).
Woodward, Kenneth L. (2000). The Book of Miracles. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-82393-4.
M. Kamp, MD. Bruno Gröning. The miracles continue to happen. 1998, (Chapters 1 - 4)
There is a religious miracle you can physically see
[edit]
Bibliography
Houdini, Harry Miracle Mongers and Their Methods: A Complete Expose Prometheus Books; Reprint edition (March 1993) originally published in 1920 ISBN 0-87975-817-1.
Andrew Dickson White (1896 first edition. A classic work constantly reprinted) A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, See chapter 13, part 2, Growth of Legends of Healing: the life of Saint Francis Xavier as a typical example.
[edit]
External links Look up miracle in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

The history of thinking about miracles in the West.
Click here for Scientific Miracles of the Qur'an
About the miracles of the Quran
God's Miracles, Islamic perspective
An Indian Skeptic's explanation of miracles: By Yuktibaadi compiled by Basava Premanand
Religious miracles
The Quran Miracles Encyclopedia
Medical Miracles of the Quran
Skeptic's Dictionary on miracles
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
Why Don't Miracles Happen Today? - A Jewish view on miracles nowadays chabad.org
On the Cessation of the Charismata — the problem of miracles today.
Andrew Lang, "Science and 'Miracles'", The Making of Religion Chapter II, Longmans, Green, and Co., London, New York and Bombay, 1900, pp 14–38.
"Miracle". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.
"miracle". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.
My Burning Bush, Nancy's Miracle from God, from Judaism to the Lord Jesus Christ by Nancy Goldberg Hilton,hiltonbooks.com
Article "miracle" in the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science * [2]
Rory Roybal Miracles or Magic?. Xulon Press, 2005.

[hide]
v • d • e
Philosophy of religion

Related articles:
Criticism of religion • Exegesis • History of religion • Religion • Religious philosophy • Theology • Relationship between religion and science • Religion and politics • Faith and rationality • more...

Concepts in religion
Afterlife • Euthyphro dilemma • Faith • Intelligent design • Miracle • Problem of evil • Religious belief • Soul • Theodicy

Theories of religion
Acosmism • Agnosticism • Animism • Antireligion • Atheism • Brights • Dharmism • Deism • Divine command theory • Dualism • Esotericism • Exclusivism • Existentialism (Christian, Agnostic, Atheist) • Feminist theology • Gnosticism • Henotheism • Humanism (Religious, Secular, Christian) • Inclusivism • Monism • Monotheism • Mysticism • Naturalism (Metaphysical, Religious, Humanistic) • New Age • Nondualism • Nontheism • Pandeism • Pantheism • Polytheism • Process theology • Religious fundamentalism • Spiritualism • Shamanism • Taoic • Theism • Transcendentalism • more ...

Philosophers of religion
Albrecht Ritschl • Alvin Plantinga • Anselm of Canterbury • Antony Flew • Augustine of Hippo • Averroes • Baron d'Holbach • Baruch Spinoza • Blaise Pascal • Boethius • David Hume • Desiderius Erasmus • Emil Brunner • Ernst Cassirer • Ernst Haeckel • Ernst Troeltsch • Friedrich Schleiermacher • Gaunilo of Marmoutiers • Georg Hegel • George Santayana • Harald Høffding • Heraclitus • Immanuel Kant • J. L. Mackie • Johann Gottfried Herder • Karl Barth • Ludwig Feuerbach • Maimonides • Paul Tillich • Pico della Mirandola • Ramakrishna • Reinhold Niebuhr • René Descartes • Richard Swinburne • Robert Merrihew Adams • Rudolf Otto • Sigmund Freud • Søren Kierkegaard • Thomas Aquinas • Thomas Chubb • William Alston • William James • W.K. Clifford • William L. Rowe • William Whewell • William Wollaston • more ...

Existence of god For Beauty · Christological · Consciousness · Cosmological · Degree · Desire · Experience · Love · Miracles · Morality · Ontological · Pascal's Wager · Proper basis · Reason · Teleological · Transcendental · Witness

Against 747 Gambit · Atheist's Wager · Evil · Free will · Hell · Inconsistent revelations · Nonbelief · Noncognitivism · Occam's Razor · Omnipotence · Poor design · Russell's teapot · Transcendental

Portal · Category · Task Force · Discussion · Changes

Categories: Miracles