The incoherence of the theologians

 

The YouTube clip above is a surprisingly good introduction to the life, philosophy and (perhaps) mysticism of Muslim polymath Ibn Sina or Avicenna (980-1037). Unsurprisingly, it turns out that Avicenna wasn´t a very orthodox Muslim, at least not in terms of his philosophy. Rather, he was a Neo-Platonist.

His philosophical argument for God´s existence (which sounds very familiar still 1000 years later) goes something like this: all composite things are caused by another thing, the entire chain of composite things we call “the universe” must therefore also have a cause, the ultimate cause of everything must be simple. And that´s what we call God. Or rather: that´s not really the god of classical theism, but The One of Plotinus (whose ideas were known in the Islamic world through a paraphrase called “The Theology of Aristotle”). Avicenna did believe that the universe was eternal, but an eternal chain of composite things still needs an uncaused cause that´s simple. This is also derived from Plotinus, where The One eternally overflows and emanates various lower ontological levels, one of which is our universe. Thus, the universe is both eternal *and* dependent on The One as its eternal cause. The Avicennian-Plotinian god is a primordial and perfect unity and simplicity, which emanates the lower level as part of its very nature, while being completely blissful and unaware of the suffering and privation at the lower levels. This god only knows “universals”, never particulars. He, or rather It, stands outside time and space.

But how can this kind of god ever save anyone? It seems that he strictly speaking cannot – The One can be reached only through philosophical contemplation or perhaps mystical states. The One does emanate two levels in between itself and the universe: the Intellect and the Universal Soul. Strictly speaking, it is the latter that then emanates the universe. The god of classical theism could perhaps be assimilated to the Intellect, while the Universal Soul could be seen as the “anima mundi”. Or they could both be seen as the god of classical theism. But in this system, the apex of the ontological hierarchy is above Allah or God the Father. This makes it problematic when Christian apologists tries to use arguments derived from Avicenna to prove the Biblical God. You simply can´t go from “even the entire chain needs a caused that must be uncaused” to “that uncaused cause is Bible God”, since Avicenna´s whole point was that the uncaused cause must be simple and non-composite. But the god of the theologians is surely anything but simple: he is gendered, personal, can feel both anger and love, is recognized in three persons, one of the persons being born as a man in a specific location on Earth, and seems intensely interested in the behavior and ultimate fate of Homo sapiens. How is this “simple”? Note also that this god isn´t known through philosophical speculation but only through special revelation (or theological speculation on special revelation).

In the Orthodox Church, I suppose the three highest levels of the Neo-Platonist hierarchy are all considered “God”. The One is the dazzling darkness, the unknowable essence of God. The Intellect is God as he appears in the Bible. And the Universal Soul is perhaps the uncreated energies described by Gregory Palamas. But surely this is still composite by Avicenna´s standards? As for modern science, perhaps space and time aren´t “composite” and can hence play the role of uncaused cause Avicenna assigned to The One, but I suspect Ibn Sina would disagree with this. Space and time can certainly be conceptualized as composite. The One, presumably, cannot.

The religion with which Avicenna has most in common is actually Hinduism. The One has a family likeness with Brahman. In certain forms of Hinduism, Brahman brings forth Bhagawan – the personal god (such as Vishnu) – and Bhagawan then emanates Brahma, who creates the universe. This certainly sounds as a personification of the Intellect and the Universal Soul.

Personally, I have some kind of sympathies with both the panentheist-pantheist and theist camps, and mystics certainly report encounters with both kinds of god. Ultimately, humans probably can´t know these things anyway…

The entire history of philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. And the entire history of theology is a series of footnotes to Plotinus.