Abstract
The history of scientific thought shows that religion and science can interact in positive ways, despite their differences. In this chapter, I discuss and compare the perspectives on faith and reason expressed by four intellectuals belonging to different cultural contexts (with the exception of the first two): Averroes, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas and Galileo Galilei. My purpose is to elucidate their views and to consider to what extent they are applicable to contemporary theoretical debate on the harmonization of religion and science. In this regard, I explain the importance of philosophical hermeneutics as an instrument for mediation between religious doctrines and scientific theories.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Cf. Guessoum (2010, p. 57): “Discussions of the relation between science and religion, or at least between profane and revealed knowledge, go back far before the development of modern science. Ever since humans started to develop a rational methodology for finding “truth” and ascertaining their validity that is since the appearance of (systematic) philosophy, the question of the relation between that kind of knowledge and what the revealed scriptures teach became a central one in the humans' quest for understanding.”
- 2.
- 3.
Averroes (2012, pp. 3–7).
- 4.
- 5.
Averroes (2012), 1–1. In the third paragraph, the Andalusian philosopher also claims that: “the Law [šarīʿa] has rendered obligatory the study of beings by the intellect, and the reflection of them” (we added the term in brackets). Surely, Averroesʼ conception of science is not the same as the modern one. Nidhal Guessoum points out with a critical eye that: “Ibn Rushd had obviously not adopted the inductive method of science,” although “Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina can be forgiven for being so “Greek” in their approaches that they totally failed to see that the inductive approach was closer to physics” (Cf. Guessoum 2011, pp. XXI–XXII).
- 6.
Including its derivatives, the Arabic term ʿilm can be found at least nine hundred times in the Qurʼan. Its meaning is close to that of “science”, but it is also used to refer to religious sciences. (Cf. Guessoum 2011, pp. 53–61).
- 7.
Averroes (2012).
- 8.
Op.cit., pp. 1–3.
- 9.
Op.cit., pp. 3–2.
- 10.
Op.cit., pp. 3–3. See also op.cit., pp. 2–13 (we added the Arabic words into brackets): “This is the reason why Scripture is divided into apparent and inner meanings: the apparent meaning [ẓāhir] consists of those images which are coined to stand for those ideas, while the inner meaning [bāṭin] is those ideas [themselves], which are clear only to the demonstrative class.”
- 11.
Op.cit., pp. 2–1.
- 12.
For example, Muslim theologians used to believe in the creatio ex nihilo, while to Averroes, who was in line with Aristotelian philosophy, the world was eternal. According to Averroes, these two different views are just apparently opposites. Cf. op.cit., pp. 2–9 (we added the Arabic term into brackets): “Concerning the question whether the world is pre-eternal or came into existence, the disagreement between the ‘Ashʿarite theologians and the ancient philosophers can, in my view, be reduced to a disagreement about naming [maʿnā].”
- 13.
Dante Alighieri (1847, 6, 144) (translation by the author).
- 14.
Thomas Aquinas (1968, pp. 74–75) (we added the words in brackets). Petagine (2011, pp. 98–100). Thomas Aquinas believed the double-truth theory to be based on a misunderstanding. Petagine points out that the aim of the Doctor Angelicus was not only to deconstruct the double-truth theory and other Averroistic views, but also to show how to philosophize properly according to the Christian doctrine (that is applying the methods of reason in order to understand the various aspects of reality, but always bearing in mind that the ultimate truth can be obtained only through faith).
- 15.
Thomas Aquinas (1923, I, Q. 1–10). The fourfold interpretative model of the Sacred Scripture recognized the literal, the tropological, the anagogical and the allegorical sense of the Bible.
- 16.
- 17.
Op. cit., 1. Q. 1–5. Despite his criticism, Thomas Aquinas was aware of the fact that dogmas cannot contradict philosophical arguments, since the second are based on logic. For example, the Doctor Angelicus admitted that the Greek theory of the eternity of the world is valid from a rational point of view and “there is no contradiction in saying that something made by God has always existed” (Cf. Thomas Aquinas 1997 (1991), p. 15); this position is similar to those of Averroes and Maimonides, both of whom rely on Aristotle. However, Thomas Aquinas believed based on faith in the creatio ex nihilo.
- 18.
Cf. Campanini (2007, p. 70 ff.) After all, in the Middle Ages, Andalusia was a bridge between the Islamic world and the West and a meeting place for people of different faiths. Cultural activities were supported by the presence of libraries, astronomical observatories and other places where scientists could meet. Furthermore, we should not ignore the role of Muslim and Jewish translators (for example in the Toledo school of translators). Cf. Samso (2015, pp. 101–125).
- 19.
In the Guide, Maimonides seems to be reacting to the positions of Averroes. Although, he never mentioned the Decisive treatise, he had his pupil Joseph ben Judah read the commentaries on Aristotelian works written by Averroes, which were probably known to the Jewish philosopher. Sarah Stroumsa claims that Maimonides was influenced by Averroesʼ philosophy, but this cannot be proven. The fact that Maimonides completely overlooked Averroes was highlighted by medieval Jewish Averroists (Isaad Albalag, Joseph Ibn Caspi and Moses of Narbonne). Cf. Stroumsa (2009, p. 178 ff.), Stroumsa (2008, p. 234), and Hayoun (2003, p. 8).
- 20.
Cf. Moses Maimonides (1904, pp. 43–44): “[…] those who appear to be talented and to have capacity for the higher method of study, i.e. that based on proof and on true logical argument, should be gradually advanced towards perfection, either by tuition or by self-instruction.” For more information on Averroes and Maimonides, see Stroumsa (2008, pp. 223–241).
- 21.
Campanini (2007, pp. 66–67).
- 22.
Stroumsa (2008, p. 34) (word added in brackets and translation by the author). Hermann Cohen himself used the rational approach of Maimonides to the Sacred Scriptures and the influence of Averroes may also be present in his thought, for the philosophy of the Arabs was not unknown to him. Veltri (2007, p. 28). In his view, when Cohen mentions Averroes, he is actually referring to the views of Maimonides.
- 23.
Cf. Moses Maimonides (1904, pp. 1–34, p. 46): “[…] he who wishes to attain to human perfection, must therefore first study Logic, next the various branches of Mathematics in their proper order, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics.” Since theology is not in this list, one may assume that either Maimonides was a disbeliever or he overlapped the contents of the holy books and those of philosophy, which is unacceptable from the perspective of believers. The importance of philosophical knowledge was also stressed in the introduction of the Guide (p. 4): “We must first form a conception of the Existence of the Creator according to our capabilities; that is, we must have knowledge of Metaphysics. But this discipline can only be approached after the study of Physics; for the science of Physics borders on Metaphysics, and must even precede it in the course of our studies, as is clear to all who are familiar with these questions.”
- 24.
Op. cit., pp. 3–54, p. 394.
- 25.
Ibid.
- 26.
According to the Letter to the Jews of Marseilles, “real wisdom” is based on rational proof of mathematical sciences, sense perception and the tradition of the prophets. This embraces (also, but not only) the concept of science and it does not include astrology, which Maimonides considered to be a pseudo-science used by false prophets. Cf. Strouma (2001, pp. 141–163); Cf. Katzman (2006, pp. 105–120).
- 27.
Moses Maimonides (1904, p. 2). The Jewish philosopher further claims: “this work […] seeks to explain certain obscure figures that occur in the Prophets, and are not distinctly characterized as being figures. Ignorant and superficial readers take them in a literal, not in a figurative sense.” Even though Maimonides, like Averroes, claimed that only an élite is able to understand the deepest meaning of the Scripture, his views on hermeneutics seem more open than those of the Muslim philosopher. Cf. Strouma 2008, pp. 236–238 (we added the words in brackets): “Maimonides distinguishes the ẓāhir from the bāṭin, the inner, esoteric, and true meaning of the text. But, as his Introduction to the Guide shows, already the ẓāhir of the text allows for various interpretations […] They [Maimonides and Averroes] agree on the legitimacy of taʾwīl and that it is necessary philosophically. But they disagree on the necessity to divulge it. Averroes is resolutely against divulging the details of taʾwīl, and he is even opposed to declaring the very principle of God's incorporeality. Maimonides, on the other hand, adopted the Almohad position and imposed on the multitudes—simpletons, children and women—a catechism that declares God's incorporeality, just as it declares His unity.”
- 28.
Moses Maimonides (1904, pp. 1–32, p. 43). See also the introduction, p. 2: “if he be guided solely by reason, and renounce his previous views, which are based on those expressions, he would consider that he had rejected the fundamental principles of the Law.”
- 29.
Op.cit., pp. 1–55, p. 78.
- 30.
Op.cit., pp. 1–59, p. 84.
- 31.
Galileo Galilei (1968, pp. 282–283) (translation by the author).
- 32.
Op. cit., pp. 326–327.
- 33.
Cf. Op. cit., p. 284 (translation by the author): “I should believe that the authority of the Holy Writ merely has the aim of persuading men of those articles and propositions, which are necessary for their salvation and surpass all human reason.”
- 34.
Op.cit., p. 283 (translation by the author).
- 35.
- 36.
Cf. Buijs (2002, pp. 181–185).
- 37.
This point is similar to Hans-Georg Gadamerʼs hermeneutical philosophy. Cf. Gadamer (1988, p. 71): “Whoever wants to understand text is always carrying out a projection. From the moment an initial meaning becomes apparent in the text, he projects the meaning of the whole. On the other hand, it is only because from the start one reads the text with certain expectations of a definitive meaning that an initial meaning becomes apparent. It is in working out this sort of projection, which of course is constantly being revised in light of what emerges with deeper penetration into the meaning – that the understanding of what is there consists.”
- 38.
See the first study in Abū Zayd (2002).
- 39.
Op.cit., p. 169, but also pp. 329–341.
- 40.
This approach has recently become widely popular among Muslims. For example, the 19th-century Egyptian theologian Aḥmad Ḥanafī even claimed that the astronomical notions in the Qur’an anticipate heliocentrism. Cf. footnote 4 and Bigliardi (2014, pp. 174–176). Even Averroes was aware of the potential risk of Qurʼan hermeneutics, therefore he claimed that the “demonstrative method is too difficult for most men, even for those who possess by nature a sound understanding, although such men are very scarce. But to discuss these questions with the masses is like bringing poisons to the bodies of many animals, for which they are real poisons” (Averroes 2012).
- 41.
Guessoum (2010, p. 68). Furthermore, he warns against the excesses of the scientific exegesis (tafsīr ʿilmī) of the Qur’an, based on the assumption that aspects of scientific discoveries are hidden in the Qur’an, assuming that it would contain a priori the key to understanding reality. This fits with the concept of “Islamic Science” or “Sacred Science”, but not that of the objective, universal and “global” science.
- 42.
Rossi (2000). Paolo Rossi underscores the fact that pseudo-science, which included alchemy, geomancy, astrology and other forms of esotericism, also played a role in the historical development of modern science and that scientists showed an interest in magic until rather recently.
References
Abu Zayd, N. (2002). Islām e storia. Critica del discorso religioso (trans: Brivio, G. & Fiorentini, G.). Turin: Bollati Boringhieri.
Alighieri, Dante. (1847). Inferna. Florence: Le Monnier.
Bigliardi, S. (2014). The contemporary debate on the harmony between Islam and science: Emergence and challenges of a new generation. Social Epistemology, 28(2), 167–186.
Buijs, J. A. (2002). Religion and philosophy in Maimonides, Averroes, and Aquinas. Medieval Encounters, 8(2), 160–183.
Camerota, M., Giudce, F., & Ricciardo, S. (2019). The reappearance of Galileo’s original letter to Benedetto Castelli. Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 73, 11–28.
Campanini, M. (2004). Il Corano e la sua interpretazione. Rome: Laterza.
Campanini, M. (2005). Qur’an and science: A hermeneutical approach. Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 7(1), 48–63.
Campanini, M. (2007). Maimonide, Averroè e gli Almohadi. In G. Cerchiai & G. Rota (Eds.), Maimonide e il suo tempo (pp. 61–74). Milan: Franco Angeli.
Cohen, H. (1919). Die Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums. Leipzig: Fock.
Connolly, M., & Keutner, T. (1988) (Eds.), Hermeneutics versus science? Three German views: H.-G. Gadamer, E. K. Specht, W. Stegmüller. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1988). On the circle of understanding. In J. M. Connolly & T. Keutner (Eds.), Hermeneutics versus science?: Three German views. Essays by H.-G. Gadamer, E. K. Specht, W. Stegmüller (translated, edited and introduced by J. M. Connolly & T. Keutner) (pp. 68–78). Notre Dame, IN.: University of Notre Dame Press.
Galileo, G. (1968). Opere di Galileo Galilei, (Ed. A. Favaro) (Vol. 5). Barbera & Florence: Giunti.
Guessoum, N. (2010). Science, religion, and the quest for knowledge and truth: An islamic perspective. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 55–69.
Guessoum, N. (2011). Islam’s quantum question: Reconciling muslim tradition and modern science. London: I.B. Tauris.
Hayoun, M.-R. (2003). Maimonide. L’altro Mosè (trans: Salpietro, S.). Milan: Jaca Book.
Katzman, M. (2006). Maimonides’ rejection of astrology. Milin Havivin, 2, 105–120.
Mahdi, M. (1984). Remarks on Averroes’ Decisive Treatise. In M. E. Marmura (Ed.), Philosophy and Theology. Studies in Honor of George F. Hourani (pp. 188–202). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Moses, M. (1904). The Guide for the Perplexed (trans: Friedländer, M.). New York: E.P. Dutton & Company.
Petagine, A. (2011). Il De unitate intellectus di Tommaso d’Aquino e la doppia verità. B@belonline/print, 9, 89–100.
Rossi, P. (2000). La nascita della scienza moderna in Europa. Rome & Bari: Laterza.
Russell, B. (1947). A history of western philosophy and its connection with political and social circumstances from the earliest times to the present day. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Samso, J. (2015). Al-Andalus: A bridge between Arabic and European science. Alhadra, 1, 101–125.
Stroumsa, S. (2001). “Ravings”: Maimonides’ concept of Pseudo-science. Aleph, 1, 141–163.
Stroumsa, S. (2009). Maimonides in his world: Portrait of a Mediterranean thinker. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stroumsa, S. (2008). The literary corpus of Maimonides and of Averroes. Maimonidean Studies, 5, 223–241.
Thomas, A. (1923). The Summa Theologica. Vol. 1 (trans: Fathers of the English Dominican Province: Sullivan, D. J.). Chicago: William Benton.
Thomas, A. (1968). On the unity of intellect against the Averroists (De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas) (trans: Zedler, M. H.). Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
Veltri, G. (2007). La filosofia araba e l’Islam nel pensiero ebraico moderno: Alcuni spunti di ricerca. La rassegna mensile di Israel, 73(1), 17–32.
Online References
Averroes. (1954). The Incoherence of the Incoherence (trans: Van den Bergh, S.). http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/tt. Accessed 5 Aug 2017
Averroes. (2012). On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy (trans: Hourani, G.F.). http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/fasl.htm. Accessed 6 July 2017
Thomas, A. (1955 [1957]) Summa contra Gentiles (trans: Pegis, C., Bourke, J., & O’Neil, C. J.). http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm. Accessed 6 July 2017.
Thomas, A. (1997 [1991]). De aeternitate mundi (trans: Miller, R. T.). http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeEternitateMundi.htm. Accessed 6 July 2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Malaguti, F. (2019). Philosophical Perspectives on the Relationship Between Religion and Science: Averroes, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas and Galileo. In: Aslan, E., Rausch, M. (eds) Jewish-Muslim Relations. Wiener Beiträge zur Islamforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26275-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26275-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-26274-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-26275-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)