Is the universe eternal? With Professor Peter Adamson (2023-01-09) #

0:00:03 hello everyone hello and welcome to
0:00:06 blogging theology again today I'm
0:00:08 delighted to talk again to Dr Peter
0:00:11 Adamson you're most welcome sir
0:00:13 hi nice to be back good to see you uh
0:00:16 Peter appeared on blogging theology five
0:00:18 months ago when he discussed the
0:00:20 question what is Islamic philosophy it
0:00:24 proved to be a very popular video
0:00:25 gaining over 31
0:00:27 000 views and I'll put a link to it in
0:00:29 the description below Peter is the host
0:00:32 of the hugely popular history of
0:00:34 philosophy podcast which appears as a
0:00:37 book series with Oxford University press
0:00:40 and I'll put a link to that as well
0:00:43 he teaches at the Ludwig Maximilian
0:00:45 University of Munich where he is
0:00:48 Professor of late ancient and Arabic
0:00:50 philosophy
0:00:52 Peter's research has mostly concerned
0:00:54 philosophy in the Islamic world and its
0:00:57 Greek sources and he is published and
0:00:59 added numerous books and written dozens
0:01:02 of research articles in this area
0:01:05 he says his hobbies include writing
0:01:07 podcasts watching Buster Keaton movies
0:01:10 and writing more podcasts as you do
0:01:14 um today Peter has kindly agreed to
0:01:16 introduce us to a fascinating Topic in
0:01:19 Greek and Islamic philosophy is the
0:01:22 world
0:01:23 Eternal is the word eternal
0:01:25 uh in his book The incoherence of the
0:01:28 philosophers the famous Muslim
0:01:30 Theologian and philosopher al-qazali
0:01:33 attacks IBN Cena's theories about the
0:01:37 eternity of the universe
0:01:39 so would you like to introduce us to the
0:01:42 historical background and the
0:01:43 philosophical issues Peter
0:01:45 sure uh so let's just first of all
0:01:49 clarify what we're talking about here so
0:01:51 we're talking about the eternity of the
0:01:53 Universe
0:01:54 um there's a couple of problems already
0:01:57 here terminologically we have the words
0:01:59 eternity and universe so we need to
0:02:01 think about what those two things mean
0:02:03 uh neither of them is too puzzling but
0:02:07 it's still worth saying at the beginning
0:02:09 eternity in medieval philosophy is an
0:02:11 ambiguous word because sometimes it
0:02:13 means timelessly
0:02:15 Eternal God is often thought to be
0:02:17 timeless this may come up again actually
0:02:19 when we're talking about how the debate
0:02:21 unfolds so something that's timelessly
0:02:24 Eternal at a minimum is something that's
0:02:26 not changing ever
0:02:28 and it might be somehow Beyond Time like
0:02:31 maybe for example tensed language like
0:02:33 past present and future verbs verb
0:02:35 tenses wouldn't apply to it not exactly
0:02:37 clear how to think about this but in a
0:02:40 way we can set all that aside because
0:02:41 when we ask whether the universe is
0:02:43 eternal all we mean is has it already
0:02:46 existed forever
0:02:48 right there's a further issue about
0:02:50 whether it will exist forever into the
0:02:53 future
0:02:54 and although that's an interesting
0:02:57 question it's not really what they're
0:02:58 debating in this context what they're
0:03:01 asking about is whether the universe has
0:03:03 already existed forever and by forever I
0:03:06 mean for an infinitely long time another
0:03:08 way of putting this is that the universe
0:03:10 doesn't have a beginning so it doesn't
0:03:11 have a first moment in time right so
0:03:13 that's the question as far as eternity
0:03:16 goes the question as far as the Universe
0:03:18 goes is you might think well anything
0:03:22 other than God would be the universe
0:03:25 so for example it could be that the
0:03:29 Universe was radically different right
0:03:32 like everything was made of cheese at
0:03:34 some point or something but that would
0:03:36 still count as an internal Universe if
0:03:38 this cheese Universe had turned into our
0:03:39 universe right
0:03:42 um but actually what they're usually
0:03:44 thinking in this context is that the
0:03:46 Universe has always existed pretty much
0:03:48 in the way that it does now
0:03:49 and in a medieval context they're
0:03:52 thinking about the Aristotelian Universe
0:03:54 which means it's a sphere
0:03:57 the out at the outside of the sphere is
0:03:59 the so-called sphere of fixed Stars so
0:04:03 these are the stars that move together
0:04:04 every night as you see them apparently
0:04:06 moving over the earth the earth in the
0:04:09 middle and in between there are
0:04:10 concentrically arranged further spheres
0:04:12 on which are seated the planets right
0:04:15 uh but actually most of what's up there
0:04:18 is not the visible planets and the Stars
0:04:20 it's these sort of crystalline perfect
0:04:22 indestructible spheres which are
0:04:25 see-through so they're transparent you
0:04:27 can't actually see them the only reason
0:04:28 you can see them is because there are
0:04:31 these visible stars heated upon them and
0:04:32 those move right so I sometimes compare
0:04:36 this to looking at it's like your your
0:04:39 city you're sitting inside a bunch of
0:04:42 nested goldfish bowls
0:04:44 and on in each goldfish Bowl there's a
0:04:47 gem
0:04:48 wow situated which is rotating along
0:04:52 with the Goldfish Bowl around the earth
0:04:54 okay and we could get more into the
0:04:56 cosmology but actually that's not going
0:04:58 to matter very much for the debate is
0:04:59 going to matter a little I think as we
0:05:01 move along and look at the arguments
0:05:03 so the so the question then to sum up is
0:05:06 whether this spherical universe
0:05:09 uh has always existed or whether it came
0:05:12 into existence for the first moment in
0:05:14 time
0:05:16 um maybe one other thing that's worth
0:05:17 mentioning about the cosmology before we
0:05:19 move on is the question of what's
0:05:21 outside the external outer so-called
0:05:24 outermost sphere with the fixed stars on
0:05:26 it and the answer is nothing and when I
0:05:28 say nothing I don't mean empty space or
0:05:30 void vacuum so we're not talking about
0:05:33 don't think about outer space I mean
0:05:35 nothing not even empty space
0:05:38 concept what does nothing mean it's
0:05:41 nothing a thing or is it evidence of
0:05:43 things
0:05:44 it's ambiguous I don't want to go down
0:05:47 that rabbit hole but yeah
0:05:49 it is not a an obvious concept
0:05:51 philosophically what do we mean by
0:05:53 nothing but but um I don't I say I don't
0:05:55 want to pursue that line of thought but
0:05:56 just flag it as an issue but I mean
0:05:59 really all we need to bear in mind is
0:06:00 that for arrest defense there's no empty
0:06:02 space outside the universe so the limits
0:06:04 of reality or the edge of the
0:06:06 the edges of the cosmic spheres and one
0:06:11 thing that was pointed out by razali
0:06:12 actually in the debate is that this
0:06:15 means that for an Aristotelian there's a
0:06:17 disinology between time and space
0:06:19 because time for them goes on and on and
0:06:22 on back into the past right so there's
0:06:24 no limit to time in the past there's a
0:06:27 limit to time sort of going forward
0:06:28 which is the present moment and we're
0:06:30 keeping that we're pushing the limit on
0:06:32 as we keep moving towards the future but
0:06:35 there's no limit in the past right
0:06:36 because the universes always exist
0:06:38 whereas there is a limit in space
0:06:40 right so there's an edge to everything
0:06:44 which is the outermost sphere
0:06:46 interesting okay so now if we move on to
0:06:50 the the actual debate as it unfolded in
0:06:52 Antiquity I think actually
0:06:56 um an interesting fact about the antique
0:06:59 debate is that the main driving force
0:07:02 behind it is something that's not
0:07:05 actually that important in medieval
0:07:07 philosophy although it does come up
0:07:09 and this is really an issue about
0:07:12 exegesis and philosophical Authority
0:07:15 so by late Antiquity once neoplatonism
0:07:19 kind of comes to be the dominant way of
0:07:22 doing philosophy and we don't need to
0:07:24 get into that except to say that they're
0:07:26 like after Plato and Aristotle there's a
0:07:28 period where we have these various
0:07:29 schools of philosophy that become
0:07:31 dominant especially stoicism but also
0:07:33 epicureanism and skepticism we call that
0:07:35 Hellenistic philosophy then in late
0:07:37 Antiquity Plato and Aristotle sort of
0:07:40 edged them out as being the main sources
0:07:43 and the philosophers of late Antiquity
0:07:47 have a problem whenever Plato and
0:07:49 Aristotle seem to disagree about
0:07:51 something
0:07:52 so for example Aristotle criticizes
0:07:55 Plato's theory of forms very heavily
0:07:57 yeah and so the neoplatonists who would
0:08:03 like to use both Aristotle and Plato as
0:08:05 authoritative sources
0:08:07 they have a problem they have to figure
0:08:09 out what to do about this yeah and they
0:08:12 might say things like oh well when
0:08:13 Aristotle criticizes the theory of forms
0:08:15 what he what he's doing there is not
0:08:18 criticizing the theory but certain ways
0:08:20 of understanding the theory but there's
0:08:22 some other way of understanding the
0:08:23 theory According to which it's correct
0:08:24 which is a completely bogus reading of
0:08:27 Aristotle but it's it's the kind of
0:08:29 thing they would say yeah and one of the
0:08:31 main points of tension or apparent
0:08:34 points of tension between Plato and
0:08:36 Aristotle is our question whether the
0:08:38 universe is eternal right because in a
0:08:41 dialogue which people don't read that
0:08:43 much anymore in like on universities but
0:08:46 which was absolutely one of the most
0:08:48 important dialogues in late Antiquity in
0:08:50 the Middle Ages and the Middle Ages is
0:08:52 certainly the most important certain
0:08:53 dialogue for Plato in terms of its
0:08:55 influence
0:08:56 this is called the Timaeus and it's an
0:08:59 account of a Divine Craftsman
0:09:03 called a demiurge
0:09:05 in Greek long time to learn to pronounce
0:09:08 that word but it's demiurge yeah well I
0:09:11 mean it's a temuros in Greek you can do
0:09:14 whatever you want with it I usually say
0:09:16 Debbie urge in English yeah yeah so the
0:09:18 demiurge
0:09:19 um is a God that creates the physical
0:09:22 Cosmos yes no not to be identified with
0:09:25 the god understood in the western uh not
0:09:27 the god of Islam we go to Christianity
0:09:29 go to Judaism this is some other kind of
0:09:31 configuration of the deity it's not
0:09:33 identified simply with our understanding
0:09:34 of God that's right for sure although
0:09:37 one reason why the Timaeus is so popular
0:09:40 in the Middle Ages is that it seems to
0:09:43 be one of the Pagan philosophical works
0:09:45 that comes closest to affirming the
0:09:48 creationists you know religious
0:09:51 assumptions yeah so that so at least
0:09:53 you've got this Creator God right yeah
0:09:56 um
0:09:57 but one thing that it looks like may be
0:10:00 different between the Timaeus God and
0:10:02 the abrahamic God is that this God seems
0:10:05 to be creating the universe out of some
0:10:06 pre-existing stuff
0:10:08 again very difficult to interpret
0:10:11 whatever what uh Plato's talking about
0:10:12 that there but Aristotle implies that
0:10:15 Plato was just talking about creating
0:10:17 the universe from pre-existing matter so
0:10:19 you have some unformed matter and then
0:10:21 the damage comes along and imposes form
0:10:23 on it
0:10:24 um
0:10:25 notice by the way that takes us back to
0:10:27 the question of what do we mean by
0:10:28 talking about the universe yes because
0:10:32 according to that story so as a kind of
0:10:34 like superficial at least reading of the
0:10:37 Tomas might give you the idea that
0:10:40 there's some unformed matter which is
0:10:41 eternal
0:10:42 and it's just kind of sitting there
0:10:44 waiting for the damage to do something
0:10:46 with it and then the demiurge comes
0:10:47 along and makes it into a universe you
0:10:51 might also think the fact that he's
0:10:52 called a Craftsman
0:10:54 because that's that Greek word implies
0:10:57 something like a carpenter
0:10:59 right so the idea of making it out of
0:11:02 making the universe out of pre-existing
0:11:03 matter the way a carpenter would make a
0:11:05 table out of wood is kind of
0:11:09 yeah in any case there's a passage in
0:11:13 the Timaeus where Plato explicitly
0:11:16 raises the question or has his main
0:11:18 character Timaeus explicitly raised the
0:11:20 question whether the universe has a
0:11:22 beginning
0:11:24 or not so he says is it does it have a
0:11:27 beginning or did it come to be
0:11:30 and the Greek words here are important
0:11:32 so he says
0:11:33 does it have a beginning an RK okay yes
0:11:37 which is a word that lives on in English
0:11:40 in words like architect right that's the
0:11:42 Chief Architect yes
0:11:46 um so Techni is craft and yeah RK is
0:11:50 Chief or beginning or principle yes
0:11:53 and then he when he says it has it come
0:11:55 to be he uses the word gegonen so that
0:11:58 just means has come to be yeah
0:12:02 you'll see in a second why I'm sort of
0:12:04 dwelling on the Greek words so so it
0:12:06 looks like and and then tameus in the in
0:12:08 the dialogue says it has come to be
0:12:11 so it looks like he's explicitly
0:12:13 affirming that the Universe came to be
0:12:14 with the first moment in time
0:12:16 which would be okay except that
0:12:19 Aristotle is even more explicit that the
0:12:22 universe is eternal yeah yes and he even
0:12:25 uses the Eternal motions of the heavens
0:12:27 in his proof for God's existence
0:12:30 so again that's kind of a long story but
0:12:32 the basic idea is that uh there it's
0:12:34 impossible that a body
0:12:36 be the generating power that gives rise
0:12:39 to an infinite motion so if the heavens
0:12:42 have already been moving infinitely for
0:12:44 an eternal period of time that must mean
0:12:46 that they have an incorporeal cause and
0:12:49 that would be God
0:12:50 right so on the face of it looks like
0:12:52 you've got this clash between Plato on
0:12:54 the one hand aerosol and the other Plato
0:12:56 thinks the universe is not Eternal
0:12:57 aerosol thinks it is and these are our
0:12:59 two main authorities so we don't really
0:13:01 want them to disagree so that's like a
0:13:03 central problem that drives the eternity
0:13:05 debate and Antiquity gosh yeah so moving
0:13:09 on to
0:13:10 um the Islamic uh philosophers um IBN
0:13:13 Cena of course
0:13:14 um he's known uh in the west as uh Ivins
0:13:17 Avi Sena if I pronounce that correct uh
0:13:20 but his Arabic name uh is IBN Cena and
0:13:22 uh he was the author of a numerous work
0:13:25 a hugely influential philosopher uh and
0:13:27 controversial for many people and uh
0:13:29 this is the work uh the metaphysics of
0:13:31 healing which is perhaps relevant to uh
0:13:34 your discussion but alcazali in his uh
0:13:38 volume the incoherence of the
0:13:39 philosophers uh offers a sustained
0:13:41 Relentless and ruthless critique of
0:13:45 um his views even seen as uh views which
0:13:48 I'll uh obviously invite you perhaps to
0:13:50 to elucidate the what is the argument
0:13:52 about why is Al gazali so critical of
0:13:54 IBN Cena and and so on and then I have a
0:13:57 a question about this whole issue uh um
0:14:01 toward later on perhaps
0:14:03 right okay so actually let's let's first
0:14:05 fill in just a bit of the story between
0:14:07 where we just love to have Plato and
0:14:09 Aristotle and these guys because the the
0:14:12 arguments against the eternity of the
0:14:14 world that are circulating in the
0:14:16 Islamic World actually
0:14:18 tons of some extent from the elite
0:14:21 ancient context so what happens there is
0:14:25 that most of the neoplatonists
0:14:27 want to say that the universe is eternal
0:14:30 so even though they're playing this they
0:14:31 agree with Aristotle right so they need
0:14:34 to offer a reading of Plato According to
0:14:36 which he also thinks the universe is
0:14:38 eternal
0:14:39 and this is actually why I mentioned the
0:14:41 Greek words so when so there's a plate
0:14:44 in this name proclus who says well when
0:14:47 the Timaya says that the Universe has an
0:14:49 RK
0:14:50 it doesn't mean that the Universe has a
0:14:51 temporal beginning it means that it has
0:14:53 a principle or a cause like a first
0:14:55 principle because as I said archive can
0:14:58 mean that too and when it says that the
0:15:00 Universe has come to be get gone in what
0:15:03 it means is that the universe is in kind
0:15:06 of flux is changing all the time as
0:15:08 opposed to the Divine source which is
0:15:10 unchanging
0:15:12 and then a late ancient neoplatonist who
0:15:15 was also a Christian named John
0:15:17 philopenus attacked this reading of the
0:15:20 tameus said no no the Tomas is to be
0:15:23 taken kind of literally or at its you
0:15:25 know at the first blush reading uh
0:15:27 saying that the Universe does begin and
0:15:30 furthermore there's all kinds of
0:15:31 arguments we can give to show that the
0:15:33 Universe had must have had a first
0:15:35 moment in time and he has arguments to
0:15:38 show that the idea of past eternity is
0:15:41 impossible and we can maybe get into
0:15:42 that but anyway his arguments against
0:15:45 the eternity of the universe are then
0:15:47 transmitted into Arabic and they were
0:15:49 already known before and Cena and of his
0:15:52 Ali so actually when al-hazali is
0:15:54 attacking in Messina he's able to draw
0:15:56 on some of the same kinds of arguments
0:15:58 that have been given Against The
0:15:59 Eternity of the universe already in
0:16:01 Antiquity by philophonists and then by
0:16:03 some arabic speaking philosophers before
0:16:05 in Cena
0:16:06 and in fact um I mean people often
0:16:10 suggest that that a kind of definitive
0:16:14 feature of philosophy in the Islamic
0:16:16 world is that all the philosophers
0:16:17 believe that the universe is eternal
0:16:19 and all the theologians think it isn't
0:16:21 so we have this kind of paradigmatic
0:16:23 debate between even Cena and Jose but
0:16:25 they kind of extrapolate from that to
0:16:27 think well all of the philosophers think
0:16:28 the universe is eternal all the
0:16:30 theologians think it's not Eternal
0:16:31 that's not true yeah
0:16:35 and others who thought the universe was
0:16:37 at a beginning in time that it wasn't
0:16:40 Eternal well actually no farabi does
0:16:42 does seem to I mean there's a little bit
0:16:44 of unclarity about this but um it seems
0:16:47 that farabi thought the universe was
0:16:48 eternal and even Cena did and in did
0:16:53 right also known as the Pharaoh is and
0:16:56 they're really famous yeah yeah these
0:16:58 are the three most famous aristotelians
0:17:01 um in the universe in the uh in the
0:17:03 universe in Islamic World
0:17:06 um Islamic world not to be confused with
0:17:07 the universe so because they're famous
0:17:10 there's a kind of
0:17:12 easy assumption which is that all of the
0:17:14 so-called philosopher all of this is
0:17:16 what we talked about last time right so
0:17:17 there's this contrast between Kalam if
0:17:20 you have these Greek inspired
0:17:21 philosophers and these quranic inspired
0:17:24 theologians and people who assume that
0:17:26 all of the philosophers the philosopher
0:17:28 are adherents of The Eternity of the
0:17:30 universe but actually that's not true so
0:17:33 the first philosopher who's making
0:17:35 significant use of Greek works is a
0:17:37 kindy he argues explicitly Against The
0:17:40 Eternity of the universe using arguments
0:17:42 from Philippines
0:17:44 a Jewish philosopher at the same time as
0:17:46 the idea gone does exactly the same
0:17:48 thing around the same time you have Abu
0:17:50 Bakr
0:17:51 see who's uh not a nurse Italian or
0:17:54 platon but he's a platonist in a way and
0:17:56 he's very influenced by gallon um
0:17:58 because he's a doctor he also rejects
0:18:01 The Eternity of the universe and you can
0:18:03 kind of go on from there and talk about
0:18:05 other philosophers like misk away who's
0:18:07 a contemporary of Encina so actually I
0:18:10 don't think that it's true that even
0:18:12 among the philosophers there was a kind
0:18:13 of Orthodoxy about this you say I mean
0:18:17 in his book The incoherence the
0:18:19 philosophers which we'll come to in a
0:18:20 second appears to suggest that Greek
0:18:22 philosophers did Believe In The Eternity
0:18:23 he seems to have this generalized view
0:18:25 that Greek philosophers did Believe In
0:18:27 The Eternity of the universe and you're
0:18:28 saying actually that's wrong with Al
0:18:30 gazali basically as a matter of fact
0:18:31 just got it wrong in fact there were
0:18:33 some prominent ones who did but most
0:18:35 didn't yeah and in fact I mean when he
0:18:38 uses the word philosopher or the word
0:18:41 philosophy father
0:18:43 actually I mean that's a little bit
0:18:46 misleading because what he really means
0:18:47 is just in Cena so he says the
0:18:50 philosophers say
0:18:52 and then he oh what he's always doing
0:18:54 there is either giving a view of encinas
0:18:58 or an argument that you could give in on
0:19:00 behalf of evidence right but he's often
0:19:04 saying the thing is that some
0:19:05 philosophers would have strongly
0:19:07 disagreed with in particular like a
0:19:09 kindy would have strongly disagreed that
0:19:11 the universe
0:19:12 so so actually this is a
0:19:16 um kind of symptom of something you
0:19:18 mentioned before which is just the
0:19:20 powerful influence of Encina so once he
0:19:22 comes along he kind of pushes everyone
0:19:24 else out and makes it hard to see that
0:19:28 there's a difference between being a
0:19:29 philosopher and being an avocene a
0:19:33 follower of I didn't see that but
0:19:35 actually it's I mean it's a historical
0:19:38 matter it's important to distinguish
0:19:40 those two things right but in any case
0:19:42 that I mean for us I guess in this
0:19:44 conversation the more important issue is
0:19:47 given that it wasn't kind of automatic
0:19:50 that Encino would have would endorse The
0:19:53 Eternity of the universe why did he yeah
0:19:56 that's a good point yes and one obvious
0:19:59 answer which might apply to al-farabi
0:20:01 and Rush would be well they know that
0:20:05 Aristotle believed in The Eternity of
0:20:07 the universe and there are aristotelians
0:20:10 like they're more committed to
0:20:11 Aristotle's Authority than maybe some of
0:20:13 the other arabic speaking philosophers
0:20:14 were and so they kind of feel like they
0:20:16 have to go along with him on this
0:20:19 but actually I don't think that's a very
0:20:21 good explanation in the case they
0:20:22 haven't seen it it would be a good
0:20:23 explanation in the case because he's
0:20:26 like a died in the wool hardcore but in
0:20:29 in the scene as like very proud of the
0:20:32 fact that he always reconsiders every
0:20:34 issue thinks about whether he agrees
0:20:36 with Aristotle he's often critical of
0:20:38 Aristotle he's not usually rude about
0:20:39 Aristotle but he definitely disagrees
0:20:41 with him on a number of points and if he
0:20:44 hadn't been philosophically convinced
0:20:47 that the universe is eternal he wouldn't
0:20:49 have said it was just to go along with
0:20:51 Aristotle I think that's clear yeah yeah
0:20:54 so to understand why he thinks the
0:20:56 universe is eternal we need to say
0:20:58 something about his views on God
0:21:01 and I think we might have touched on
0:21:03 this in the previous conversation but
0:21:04 just as a quick reminder he proves that
0:21:07 God exists by showing that there's a
0:21:09 necessary existence oh God right so the
0:21:13 idea is everything we see is contingent
0:21:15 it can't it can't be that contingent
0:21:17 things come to be without having a
0:21:19 necessary cause so there's this
0:21:20 necessary cause there's only one such
0:21:21 necessary cause that's God that's how he
0:21:24 kind of gets his philosophical theology
0:21:26 going
0:21:27 and when he says that God is necessary
0:21:31 he wants to say not just that God
0:21:33 necessarily exists which everyone would
0:21:36 agree with in this culture right so God
0:21:38 doesn't just happen to exist right God
0:21:39 has to exist yeah um it but furthermore
0:21:43 Encino wants to say that everything
0:21:45 about God is necessary
0:21:48 so here's a reason why you might think
0:21:51 that if you're even Cena or a reason why
0:21:53 he did think this
0:21:55 um suppose that there's something about
0:21:57 God that's not necessary
0:21:59 so for example suppose that he
0:22:02 May create the universe but may not like
0:22:06 it's sort of up to him to decide
0:22:09 or indeed suppose that the Universe
0:22:12 isn't eternal
0:22:13 said that for a while he wasn't creating
0:22:15 the universe and then suddenly he is hmm
0:22:18 right so like on Tuesday he's not
0:22:20 creating the universe but on Wednesday
0:22:21 he is
0:22:23 so that would mean that there's
0:22:25 something contingent about God there's
0:22:27 something about God that may or may not
0:22:29 be the case and it turns out not to be
0:22:31 the case at first and then to be the
0:22:32 case later he's first he's not a Creator
0:22:34 then he is a Creator so now even Cena
0:22:36 would say well let's explain why this
0:22:38 happens
0:22:39 it can't be due to God himself or God's
0:22:42 nature or Essence because if it were
0:22:44 true to God's nature then of course it
0:22:46 would follow automatically from his
0:22:48 nature so it would always be true of him
0:22:49 and it would necessarily be true of him
0:22:51 right because so if you imagine that God
0:22:54 creates the universe essentially or
0:22:57 necessarily from his nature that would
0:23:00 be like water being wet right so water
0:23:03 can't not be wet
0:23:04 it's always wet similarly if God's
0:23:07 essentially guaranteed to create the
0:23:09 universe then he would always be
0:23:11 creating it
0:23:12 of course this is the implication that
0:23:14 God has no Freedom no free will so to
0:23:16 speak he's compelled he's a necessity
0:23:18 he's necessitated to act uh that's
0:23:22 exactly yeah you're kind of skipping
0:23:23 ahead to it because of his objection
0:23:24 there yes that's but that's you're right
0:23:27 that's exactly because always worry
0:23:29 um so and and I mean it was always going
0:23:32 to say is well God does it by free will
0:23:34 but what did Messina would say is well
0:23:37 look either God generates the universe
0:23:40 through himself in which case he'd have
0:23:42 to do it essentially the way that water
0:23:44 is wet or there would have to be some
0:23:46 other factor involved
0:23:48 some other cause would come along and
0:23:51 make God create the universe like for
0:23:54 example I mean that makes it sound very
0:23:56 much a matter of compulsion but it could
0:23:59 also be something like circumstances
0:24:01 change and it becomes better for the
0:24:02 universe to exist than not to exist
0:24:05 right but whatever it is that happens
0:24:08 that makes God generate the universe it
0:24:11 would be some kind of cause that's being
0:24:13 exerted on God
0:24:15 and then God would have a cause which we
0:24:17 rule out
0:24:19 so what you just said is exactly is
0:24:22 Ali's response to that but before we
0:24:24 maybe get into that and talk about the
0:24:26 response I think it's worth kind of
0:24:28 dwelling on
0:24:30 the internal logic of what Encina is
0:24:33 saying so I've been seeing what I've
0:24:34 been Cena is saying is God is necessary
0:24:37 and what that means is that everything
0:24:39 about God is necessary not just that God
0:24:40 exists and that he's powerful and
0:24:43 knowing and good and all the things that
0:24:45 we want to ascribe to God but God cannot
0:24:48 take actions that are non-necessary
0:24:50 right because if he did
0:24:53 then there'd have to be some causal
0:24:55 influence being brought to bear on him
0:24:56 which explains why he's doing it right
0:24:59 because he might not have done it right
0:25:00 so it's like it's contingent right
0:25:03 sometimes they compare this to um to a
0:25:05 set of scales that need to be
0:25:07 preponderated to do one thing rather
0:25:09 than another
0:25:11 so whatever it is that kind of comes
0:25:13 along and puts its thumb on the scale to
0:25:15 make God create that would be a cause
0:25:17 that's exerting some kind of influence
0:25:20 over God and that's what he wants to
0:25:22 rule out and actually that's that's very
0:25:25 very intuitive right yes and very
0:25:27 logical I mean I I I would I raise this
0:25:30 question uh later on but I do want to
0:25:32 just observe here that both of these
0:25:34 individuals IBN Cena are self-identified
0:25:37 as Muslims and and this is they're not
0:25:40 identified I think primarily as
0:25:42 philosophers or but as Muslims so I just
0:25:45 raised that point because it links into
0:25:46 a question I'm going to ask about the uh
0:25:48 the Quran basically and what it says
0:25:51 which may or may not be uh referred to
0:25:54 very much in these conversations anyway
0:25:56 but um anyway I just wanted to point out
0:25:58 we are talking about uh the interlocity
0:26:00 of both Muslims they're not just secular
0:26:03 Hellenistic philosophers yeah that's
0:26:05 right and although but you're right that
0:26:07 embassina when he gives this whole
0:26:09 argument he he might like throw in a
0:26:12 quotation from the Quran at the end and
0:26:14 say something like oh that's why it says
0:26:15 that God is powerful in the Quran right
0:26:17 but but it but the whole thing that
0:26:20 what's generating it is a philosophical
0:26:21 argument yeah definitely
0:26:24 um okay so maybe now we can get to
0:26:27 kazali's response
0:26:29 which is very complicated but at the
0:26:32 core of it is definitely the idea you
0:26:34 mentioned before so what because all he
0:26:37 wants to do is to say that
0:26:40 God is capable of doing something
0:26:42 contingent
0:26:44 and that is important to him because he
0:26:48 wants God to have free will
0:26:50 and to him Free Will means being able to
0:26:53 choose between Alternatives that are
0:26:55 genuinely open actually even Cena has
0:26:58 anticipated this objection so he says
0:27:00 that
0:27:01 um he says that God is free
0:27:04 or is at least willing but what he then
0:27:08 it does is he interprets that to mean
0:27:10 that there's nothing external compelling
0:27:12 God to act
0:27:14 so he says well we can say that God is
0:27:15 freely willing to generate the universe
0:27:18 or emanate the universe because
0:27:20 nothing's making him do it so he's free
0:27:24 in the sense of being free from
0:27:25 compulsion because Ali thinks that
0:27:27 that's not good enough and that freedom
0:27:30 needs to mean literally choosing between
0:27:33 uh genuinely open Alternatives and he
0:27:36 says well actually in a way the
0:27:38 versatillians should be committed to
0:27:41 this too because let's consider again
0:27:43 the size of the universe so the universe
0:27:46 is however big it is right as we saw it
0:27:47 has these limits there's nothing outside
0:27:49 it well surely it could be like one inch
0:27:52 bigger
0:27:53 or one inch smaller
0:27:55 so it looks like God is making choices
0:27:58 between genuine Alternatives there
0:28:02 and he could have made it bigger he
0:28:04 could have made it smaller but he
0:28:05 chooses to make it that size right
0:28:07 actually the book you showed us the
0:28:09 incoherence of the philosophers yeah
0:28:11 there we go that's a translation uh
0:28:13 Michael uh mamura recommended uh by most
0:28:16 people it's a standard text he's
0:28:18 actually got the parallel Arabic and in
0:28:20 English translation uh it's very
0:28:22 readable and contains all these
0:28:24 arguments and Relentless arguments um
0:28:26 that our gazali deploys uh in attacking
0:28:28 even Cena
0:28:30 um but it doesn't seem to quote the
0:28:31 Quran very much we'll come back to this
0:28:32 and even mention IBN Cena by name I
0:28:35 don't know if maybe I missed that but I
0:28:36 couldn't see even Cena mentioned by name
0:28:39 uh in the text yeah he mentions he
0:28:42 mentions him eventually when he accuses
0:28:43 him of heresy okay
0:28:47 being an apostate actually
0:28:51 by upholding these um doctrines but what
0:28:55 I was going to mention is that in rushed
0:28:57 the aristotonian commentator I mentioned
0:28:58 before he wrote a word called the
0:29:00 incoherence of the incoherence yes yes
0:29:02 and in that he says oh it's actually not
0:29:04 true that the Universe could be an inch
0:29:06 bigger because
0:29:08 the universe is like perfectly designed
0:29:10 in this providential way so that all the
0:29:12 heavens move in exactly the right way
0:29:14 and if anything were even slightly
0:29:16 different everything would kind of go go
0:29:19 berserk so like the Heavenly influence
0:29:22 on the lower world where we live would
0:29:25 be disrupted if the universe was even
0:29:27 slightly different
0:29:28 um another nice argument that hazali
0:29:32 gives is if the universe is going around
0:29:34 like this couldn't it also have gone
0:29:37 around like this backwards or if the
0:29:40 universe is like this couldn't it be
0:29:41 like that yes and even though says these
0:29:44 things are all meaningless because like
0:29:46 up is just like wherever the North Pole
0:29:48 is so if the North Pole we're over here
0:29:50 that would be up right so you so you get
0:29:53 these nice kind of space-time analogies
0:29:56 that are raised
0:29:58 but I mean what he's really after is he
0:30:01 he
0:30:02 explicitly wants to say that God can
0:30:06 choose between two genuinely open
0:30:07 Alternatives that's this point and in
0:30:10 fact he even gives a nice example which
0:30:12 anticipates something we associate with
0:30:14 Latin medieval philosophy the so-called
0:30:16 burden's ass case where a donkey is
0:30:18 between two bales of hay yes and has to
0:30:21 choose between them so his so his Ali
0:30:23 gives the example of um someone offers
0:30:26 you two dates like not not a date like a
0:30:29 date to go out to dinner in a movie but
0:30:31 uh yeah with the little fruit dried
0:30:33 fruit right and he says well if someone
0:30:37 offers you two dates
0:30:39 and they look exactly the same and you
0:30:42 would like one
0:30:43 and he and the person says you can only
0:30:45 take one
0:30:46 then you wouldn't just kind of sit there
0:30:49 looking at them forever what was a good
0:30:52 reason to take one rather than other you
0:30:54 just pick one and so what so gazali it
0:30:58 brings us up because he thinks that one
0:30:59 of the arguments against the eternity of
0:31:02 the universe
0:31:03 would be that there's no rational basis
0:31:06 on which God could choose the first
0:31:08 moment of the universe and it's sort of
0:31:10 again the same kind of thought like well
0:31:12 there has to be some cause or Reason
0:31:14 that's bringing the god to create now
0:31:17 rather than earlier
0:31:19 um and
0:31:21 um it was all these response to that as
0:31:23 well if you want to create a universe
0:31:25 you have to do it at a specific time so
0:31:28 God just chooses a time and that's
0:31:30 rational just as it would be rational to
0:31:32 choose one of the two dates to eat
0:31:35 wow very interesting what other
0:31:37 arguments is uh our gazali deploy to
0:31:39 refute the idea of the eternity of the
0:31:42 universe yeah so some of the arguments
0:31:44 involve Infinity in interesting ways yes
0:31:48 so and this had always been one of the
0:31:51 biggest problems with the thesis of The
0:31:53 Eternity of the universe
0:31:56 this is a subject that is of great
0:31:59 interest in in contemporary philosophy
0:32:01 you know what is infinity and different
0:32:02 kinds of infinity I know it sounds
0:32:04 counter-intuitive but when you actually
0:32:05 hear the arguments there are different
0:32:07 kinds of infinity not all infinities are
0:32:09 the same and so it's become a
0:32:11 fascinating uh discourse in contemporary
0:32:13 uh uh philosophy about the nature of
0:32:15 that but I've always found it a baffling
0:32:17 concept uh the other idea of Infinity
0:32:19 but it is elusive I think uh to to many
0:32:23 people
0:32:24 um so I interrupted you no no that
0:32:27 you're right I mean that is in fact one
0:32:29 of the things that I'm really fascinated
0:32:31 by with the whole eternity debate is
0:32:33 that it raises these I mean you might
0:32:36 not care about the eternity of the
0:32:37 universe as a especially because you
0:32:39 know modern physics you might think has
0:32:42 already kind of given us the answer or
0:32:43 something like the answer so why are we
0:32:45 interested in this I think actually the
0:32:47 main reason it's interesting is that it
0:32:48 it Bears on a whole bunch of other
0:32:52 issues like the nature of Free Will so
0:32:54 for example that question is an agent
0:32:57 free because nothing's compelling the
0:32:59 agent to act which has been seen as a
0:33:00 view of Freedom or as an agent free
0:33:03 because the agent is choosing between
0:33:04 genuinely open possibilities which is it
0:33:07 was always view of Freedom that is
0:33:09 something that philosophers still debate
0:33:10 and this is one of the earliest queer
0:33:13 contrasts between those two conceptions
0:33:15 of Freedom or here
0:33:17 um you have people thinking about like
0:33:20 the nature of infinity and what kinds of
0:33:22 infinity are possible and what kinds of
0:33:24 infinity aren't possible yes
0:33:27 so what and one of the problems with the
0:33:31 um thesis that the universe is eternal
0:33:33 had always been that it seems hard to
0:33:37 believe that the Universe has already
0:33:39 existed for an infinite period of time
0:33:41 because one way of putting this would be
0:33:44 well if the universe has already had
0:33:45 existed eternally then an infinite
0:33:48 amount of time must already have elapsed
0:33:51 yes but you can't finish yeah anything
0:33:56 right so how did we get to the end of
0:33:58 this Infinity to get to the present
0:34:00 moment yeah
0:34:02 and what the aristotelians would say as
0:34:04 well that's kind of the wrong way of
0:34:06 thinking about it
0:34:07 so don't think about it as an infinite
0:34:10 past that's already finished elapsing
0:34:12 think of it more like start from the
0:34:14 present movement moment and go back
0:34:17 and now I'm willing to say well any
0:34:20 number you you mentioned to me I'm
0:34:22 willing to say that the Universe has
0:34:23 already existed for that number of years
0:34:25 so you say a billion years I say yes
0:34:27 it's already as a two or a billion years
0:34:29 a trillion years sure 10 trillion sure
0:34:31 right and you just you can go as high as
0:34:34 you want and so the the infinity
0:34:35 involved is more like the Infinity of
0:34:38 the finite numbers which is not absurd
0:34:41 mm-hmm
0:34:43 um but we really get started getting
0:34:45 into more like Technical and interesting
0:34:47 issues about Infinity with another
0:34:49 argument that gazali gives
0:34:51 and here um this is why I mentioned
0:34:53 before the thing about the nested
0:34:55 spheres
0:34:56 so remember I said that there are some
0:34:58 spheres that are closer to Earth that
0:34:59 have planets on them yes and then
0:35:02 there's the outermost sphere with the
0:35:03 fixed stars is going around once a day
0:35:04 right and the Earth is staying still in
0:35:07 the middle that's the cosmology so these
0:35:09 these planets are planetary spheres are
0:35:11 rotating at different speeds
0:35:14 so let's just say for the sake of
0:35:16 argument that like the sphere of Mars
0:35:19 moves twice as fast as the sphere of
0:35:22 Jupiter or and what I mean by that is
0:35:24 just that it goes it it rotates around
0:35:27 the earth twice every time Jupiter does
0:35:29 it once yeah okay that obviously that's
0:35:32 not the right math
0:35:34 astronomers is I know that Mars doesn't
0:35:36 go around you're twice as fast as
0:35:38 Jupiter but the point is that it's it's
0:35:40 different
0:35:41 their speeds of rotation around apparent
0:35:43 rotation around the Earth are different
0:35:45 so now his Ali says Okay so let's say
0:35:48 the universe has existed for an Infinity
0:35:50 of time
0:35:51 well that means that Mars has gone
0:35:54 around the earth an infinite number of
0:35:56 times and so has Jupiter but since Mars
0:35:59 is moving twice as fast or is rotating
0:36:01 around us twice as often this fear of
0:36:04 Mars has
0:36:07 formed an infinite number of circuits
0:36:09 around the Earth
0:36:10 that's twice as large as the infinite
0:36:13 number of circuits that Jupiter has
0:36:14 performed so we've got twice infinity
0:36:17 and once Infinity so two Infinity is one
0:36:20 of which is double the other and then it
0:36:22 was always says that's absurd yeah yes
0:36:25 because infinity is infinity you can't
0:36:27 double infinity
0:36:29 now on Modern
0:36:32 mathematical intuitions that's not the
0:36:34 case anymore yeah but you can see that
0:36:37 like something's interesting is
0:36:38 happening there where someone's like
0:36:39 thinking about whether you can do things
0:36:41 like multiplying Infinity by a finite
0:36:44 number in this case with two right so
0:36:46 that's pretty interesting another
0:36:49 argument he gives is that
0:36:52 um the philosophers are trying to get
0:36:55 out of the the commitment to what they
0:36:58 think of as an actual Infinity like that
0:37:00 thing about an act an Infinity of time
0:37:02 actually elapsing so we can get to the
0:37:04 present moment and they get around that
0:37:05 by saying well don't think about it that
0:37:07 way think about going backwards
0:37:09 don't think about going forwards from an
0:37:11 infinitely remote time think about going
0:37:14 backwards to just ever hire finite
0:37:16 numbers of elapsed years in the past
0:37:19 so it was always says well there's
0:37:22 something else they're committed to
0:37:23 which will lend them will land them with
0:37:26 it actually infinite number of things
0:37:28 that exist right now
0:37:29 which is the immortality of the human
0:37:32 soul this is kind of a from left field
0:37:35 right yes he says rightly that the
0:37:38 Philosopher's I.E IBN Cena are committed
0:37:41 to the immortality of the Soul
0:37:43 so that means that every time someone
0:37:45 dies their soul survives
0:37:48 so let's think about how many humans
0:37:50 there are have already been well the
0:37:54 universe as we've said for a nurse
0:37:55 Italian is always the same
0:37:57 and the species of animals and plants
0:37:59 are all the same
0:38:01 the human speeches has always existed
0:38:03 the University of plain universe so that
0:38:06 means that the number of humans who have
0:38:08 already lived and died is infinitely
0:38:09 large gosh
0:38:12 and that means that there's an Infinity
0:38:13 of souls hanging around somehow now wow
0:38:17 so so that gives you an actual Infinity
0:38:20 which is something that the
0:38:21 aristotelians should want to rule out
0:38:23 that's a brilliant argument actually
0:38:25 yeah it's extraordinary I I'm going to
0:38:27 bring this in now because
0:38:29 um in reading's arguments in the
0:38:31 incoherence of uh the philosophers there
0:38:34 it is again do you recommend it it's
0:38:35 actually a fascinating read
0:38:37 never seen every time someone buys one
0:38:40 of the books
0:38:42 you should you should try to demand you
0:38:45 know five percent of the profit well
0:38:46 yeah maybe I I I should I'm interested
0:38:49 to see if anyone does but I hope they do
0:38:50 because it's worth having in one's
0:38:52 library but ugly never seems to uh quote
0:38:54 from the Quran as an authority to settle
0:38:57 matters with his Muslim interlocutors
0:38:59 like IBN Cena but he relies on Purely
0:39:01 rational arguments to refute them my
0:39:04 question is why doesn't Al gazali simply
0:39:06 quote the Quran to settle his dispute
0:39:09 with IBN Cena for example and this is to
0:39:11 do with the
0:39:12 eternity of the universe particularly
0:39:14 God says in the Quran God has created
0:39:17 the heavens and the Earth to manifest
0:39:19 the truth that's the Quran 45 22 and he
0:39:21 also says God says we did not create
0:39:24 Heaven and Earth and everything between
0:39:26 them for no to no purpose there is that
0:39:29 is the opinion of those who disbelieve
0:39:31 that is 38 27 so but I think that seems
0:39:35 pretty clear that the god did create the
0:39:37 universe it wasn't Eternal and here we
0:39:40 have two people identify as Muslims
0:39:42 whose ultimate Authority is God and His
0:39:44 word I'm just wondering why they didn't
0:39:46 appeal to Authority it's not a
0:39:47 fallacious argument of the authority is
0:39:49 God surely because he's omniscient
0:39:52 um to settle this dispute so why didn't
0:39:55 they just short circuit all this and go
0:39:58 straight to God himself for the answer
0:40:01 yeah right that's a good question I
0:40:03 think there's a couple of reasons so one
0:40:05 reason it has to do with the
0:40:08 project of the incoherence of the
0:40:11 philosophers because all these work
0:40:13 so that I mean the the words in Arabic
0:40:17 in the title are
0:40:20 means I mean that's what's being
0:40:22 translated here as incoherence but it
0:40:24 means something more like stumbling
0:40:26 right or places where the philosophers
0:40:29 tried to maybe go forward too quickly
0:40:31 and lost their way that's what tahoot
0:40:33 means
0:40:34 so that is always already a clue to what
0:40:38 he's trying to do in the work in general
0:40:40 which is to show that their arguments
0:40:42 don't work kind of for internal reasons
0:40:45 right so actually although he he could
0:40:48 quote the Quran and of course in some
0:40:50 sense you're right that his motive is
0:40:52 because he thinks the Quran is
0:40:54 inconsistent with the eternity of the
0:40:55 universe right actually that's just not
0:40:58 the point the point is that these
0:41:00 arguments actually don't work in and of
0:41:01 themselves right so it's an internal
0:41:04 critique that's the point of the book
0:41:05 and so quoting the Quran would be maybe
0:41:09 kind of something you might do to kind
0:41:10 of set the context of the debate but it
0:41:12 wouldn't have to be it wouldn't be part
0:41:13 of the debate because the debate is
0:41:15 about whether I haven't seen his
0:41:16 arguments work
0:41:18 I mean another way of thinking about
0:41:20 that would be
0:41:22 suppose that you could mount a
0:41:23 philosophical argument for a thesis
0:41:25 which is inconsistent with the Quran
0:41:29 and the argument works
0:41:31 right on its own terms rather yeah well
0:41:34 or it's like a proof so I mean imagine
0:41:37 it's like a mathematical proof
0:41:40 right so for example suppose the Quran
0:41:43 said that this the diagonal of a square
0:41:45 is commensurable with the sides yes
0:41:47 which it does not it's not right so I
0:41:51 mean of course it doesn't say that but
0:41:52 imagine that it did would that be bad
0:41:53 news for the Quran or would be bad news
0:41:55 for geometry right yeah okay well so
0:41:58 here you might think well actually if
0:42:00 philosophy or Reason proves that the
0:42:03 universe is not Eternal and the Quran
0:42:05 says that it is
0:42:07 is that bad for Islam or is it bad for a
0:42:09 reason or what like and and so I think
0:42:12 one one thing that's going on at the
0:42:13 Azalea as a rational Theologian doesn't
0:42:16 want to accept that reason or rational
0:42:19 proofs might be inconsistent with the
0:42:21 Quran right because he he wants to have
0:42:23 reason and the Quran
0:42:25 so that's one reason he's arguing on
0:42:27 Purely rational grounds is he wants to
0:42:30 in a way
0:42:31 um avoid seeding the ground of rational
0:42:34 argument to the philosophers by by which
0:42:37 he means in Cena
0:42:38 so that's one reason another reason
0:42:41 though is that actually if the lines you
0:42:44 quoted from the Quran just now in the
0:42:47 scene it would say what are you talking
0:42:48 about I think that's true
0:42:50 God creates the universe he creates it
0:42:52 eternally that's what creation is so in
0:42:55 fact he's in the Cena says the
0:42:58 theologians have this idea that creation
0:43:00 means something used to not exist and
0:43:03 then it started existing and he says
0:43:05 basically he doesn't put it this way but
0:43:07 he basically says that's that's a
0:43:08 childish way of understanding what
0:43:10 creation means creation means being a
0:43:13 cause for something's existence which
0:43:16 means being a cause for its existence
0:43:17 whatever it exists
0:43:19 right I making it exist and maintaining
0:43:22 it in existence so it's not like God
0:43:24 creates and then it's like okay I'm done
0:43:26 and now I can go on vacation God creates
0:43:29 the universe all the time constantly in
0:43:31 every moment
0:43:33 and given that and actually the
0:43:34 theologians would agree with that that
0:43:36 the universe is permanently dependent on
0:43:38 God so what Messina would say is well
0:43:41 given that we agree that the Universe
0:43:44 depends causally on God at every moment
0:43:46 when it exists why are you additionally
0:43:49 insisting that it had to start
0:43:51 because we agree that what God does is
0:43:53 he creates the universe by maintaining
0:43:56 its existence whenever it exists whether
0:43:59 it's existed for an Infinity of time or
0:44:01 not is kind of irrelevant to whether God
0:44:02 creates the universe because God's
0:44:04 creating the universe all the time
0:44:06 causing it to exist well I mean I'm in a
0:44:09 position to argue for the Quran in this
0:44:11 sense it just seem to the Quran it
0:44:12 doesn't doesn't actually
0:44:14 teach or indicate the eternity of the
0:44:16 universe it it says it's created so I
0:44:18 suppose in theory they've been said it
0:44:19 could be right because he's arguing from
0:44:21 contingency the universe is contingent
0:44:23 doesn't necessarily happen to be finite
0:44:25 I guess I can see that ontologically
0:44:28 dependent yeah but the Quran doesn't
0:44:30 teach the eternity of the universe
0:44:31 Aristotle told the eternity of the
0:44:33 universe so he seems to be getting his
0:44:35 concept from Aristotle rather than the
0:44:37 Quran uh the Quran doesn't naturally it
0:44:39 seems to me Teach that Aristotle does so
0:44:42 he's not really coming from the Quran
0:44:43 therefore the critique is he's not being
0:44:45 islamically correct in his understanding
0:44:48 of the universe in that sense right so
0:44:51 what I think what even Cena would say at
0:44:53 least is that the Quran teaches the
0:44:55 radical dependence of the Universe on
0:44:57 God that's not disputed and he thinks
0:45:00 and he's got that in his system right he
0:45:02 has the universe being radically
0:45:04 dependent on God eternally
0:45:06 yeah
0:45:07 um and I I guess he would also by the
0:45:09 way say that the the Quran teaches some
0:45:11 things about God that are inconsistent
0:45:13 with the idea that the universe is not
0:45:16 Eternal for example that God is
0:45:17 perfectly wise so God is perfectly wise
0:45:19 why is he kind of hanging around for an
0:45:21 Infinity of time and then only sort of
0:45:24 randomly arbitrarily deciding to create
0:45:26 the Universe on Wednesday
0:45:28 right so so this or and in part and the
0:45:32 other the other thing is the argument I
0:45:33 gave before so he would say the Quran
0:45:36 teaches the unchallengeable supremacy of
0:45:39 God as a first cause who has no cause
0:45:41 and he says well if there if God isn't
0:45:44 creating the universe eternally then is
0:45:46 creating it with a first moment of time
0:45:48 which means there's some cause that has
0:45:50 been brought to bear on him that makes
0:45:51 him do that as we said before so
0:45:53 actually I guess he would say I mean he
0:45:55 he's not really in the business of
0:45:57 quranic commentary not he very
0:46:00 occasionally
0:46:01 very very occasionally and usually in a
0:46:03 pretty tendentious fashion I think so I
0:46:06 don't know which I don't want to suggest
0:46:08 that he's got a lot at stake in how to
0:46:11 interpret the Quran right but if you
0:46:14 pushed him on this he would say he would
0:46:16 certainly say that he's still being a
0:46:17 good Muslim and then he would say well
0:46:19 if you want to know what the Quran means
0:46:21 because we all agree it needs to be
0:46:23 interpreted then the best way to resolve
0:46:26 debates about what it means
0:46:29 would be to do some philosophy and find
0:46:31 out what is actually true
0:46:34 by the way that's even more explicitly
0:46:37 said by imrish later on the commentator
0:46:40 I've mentioned a few times he actually
0:46:42 wrote a work saying that the best
0:46:44 interpreters of the Quran are the
0:46:46 philosophers because they can check any
0:46:47 interpretation against demonstration and
0:46:50 demonstrations can't be false
0:46:53 so for example if you can demonstrate
0:46:55 the universe is not eternal
0:46:58 or sorry if you can demonstrate that it
0:47:00 is eternal then you can't give any
0:47:02 reading of the Quran that involves the
0:47:04 quran's claiming that the universe is
0:47:06 not eternal
0:47:07 well you say even Cena would have viewed
0:47:09 himself as a good Muslim but uh algazali
0:47:11 clearly didn't view him as a good Muslim
0:47:14 or Muslim at all it seems uh you
0:47:16 mentioned briefly earlier on that Al
0:47:18 gazali um tack feared him uh to use the
0:47:21 Islamic expression uh declared him to be
0:47:24 a non-muslim and that's just not a
0:47:27 theoretical
0:47:28 judgment that has legal real world
0:47:31 existential consequences now of course
0:47:33 IBN Cena had died long before Al gazali
0:47:35 so ibizino was in no risk of any action
0:47:38 taken against him of course but he did
0:47:40 declare him to be a non-muslim and why
0:47:42 did he declare him to be anonymous and
0:47:44 there's a very radical radical it's a
0:47:46 very very serious thing to do yeah and
0:47:49 it's actually not just serious it's also
0:47:50 kind of unprecedented because
0:47:54 um yeah there's so someone who's done
0:47:55 some good work on this is Frank refuel
0:47:57 who's at Yale University and he wrote a
0:48:00 book called in German uh about apostasy
0:48:03 in Islam where he argues that because
0:48:06 this moment where kazali accuses and
0:48:08 isn't seen of being an apostate
0:48:10 is
0:48:12 kind of a like a step
0:48:14 that hadn't been taken before in Islamic
0:48:18 culture
0:48:20 um and in fact in general I think people
0:48:22 have this sort of assumption about
0:48:23 medieval philosophy in general and
0:48:25 Islamic medieval philosophy in
0:48:27 particular that there must have been
0:48:29 like a lot of
0:48:31 political or social or legal pressure on
0:48:34 philosophers to conform to certain views
0:48:36 and that they would get killed if they
0:48:39 stepped out of line or thrown in jail
0:48:40 but actually that seems to have been not
0:48:43 not only is that an exaggeration but it
0:48:46 seems to be the reverse of the truth
0:48:49 isn't it it's an orientalism that we
0:48:52 have in in the west about um Islamic
0:48:54 societies uh I'm reading uh it was a
0:48:57 besides book or orientalism at the
0:48:59 moment and uh extraordinary well it's
0:49:00 such a fun book to read uh it
0:49:02 investigates many of these um uh
0:49:05 mistaken conceptions of the Muslim World
0:49:07 throughout history and today of course
0:49:09 that uh uh Western occidentalists uh
0:49:12 have had so this is another one uh which
0:49:14 unfortunately is still quite common
0:49:16 today yeah I agree and this is one of
0:49:18 them so in fact there really aren't any
0:49:21 medieval philosophers in the Islamic
0:49:22 world who were put in prison or put to
0:49:25 death or in general harassed for their
0:49:28 philosophical views there's one
0:49:29 philosopher who's a bit later than her
0:49:32 who was executed but that seems to be
0:49:35 because he got into a political Intrigue
0:49:37 with members of saladin's family
0:49:40 had him put to death in any case um so
0:49:44 what gazali does there is at the end of
0:49:46 the tahfud the incurrence of the
0:49:48 philosophers he says that because
0:49:52 taught certain things that are
0:49:53 inconsistent with Islam he's effectively
0:49:56 become an apostate and the Char the
0:49:59 penalty for that could be death
0:50:01 um
0:50:02 I mean apostate would usually mean
0:50:04 someone who's converted from Islam to
0:50:07 another religion like Christianity say
0:50:10 or like says they no longer accept the
0:50:12 prophecy of Muhammad or something like
0:50:13 that but of course didn't Cena never
0:50:15 said anything like that he said things
0:50:18 like the universe is eternal
0:50:20 um and he taught some other things that
0:50:23 that kazal they thought were
0:50:24 inconsistent with the Quran or with
0:50:26 Islam for example
0:50:29 um izena didn't accept bodily
0:50:31 Resurrection he thought that we live on
0:50:33 after death but only as immaterial Souls
0:50:35 as I was talking about before so I agree
0:50:38 of course yeah immortality was always
0:50:41 straight from Hellenistic philosophy
0:50:43 yeah yeah yeah right so on this basis
0:50:46 and some other for other Theses that uh
0:50:49 Messina Advanced Ali thought that he had
0:50:53 effectively broken with Islam but of
0:50:55 course as you said this is not really an
0:50:57 efficacious judgment on Jose's part
0:50:59 because the Messina was already dead I
0:51:02 guess that what kozali was thinking is
0:51:04 he was sort of laying down a marker
0:51:06 anyone who comes along and agrees with
0:51:08 him and seen about any of this can
0:51:10 effectively be killed
0:51:12 yes legally but in fact I mean ghazali
0:51:16 was extremely influential and still is
0:51:18 as a theologian but even after a gazales
0:51:21 says this it doesn't seem to have any
0:51:24 effect really so there are numerous
0:51:27 philosophers in the century or two
0:51:30 following
0:51:32 who come along and just agree with it
0:51:34 and Cena about all kinds of things
0:51:36 including the nature of the Soul The
0:51:37 Eternity of the world whatever
0:51:39 um and even people who don't agree with
0:51:41 him they
0:51:44 deal with the question kind of in the
0:51:46 same way that Rizzoli had in the first
0:51:48 part of the topic before he gets to this
0:51:50 accusation of apostasy at the end in
0:51:52 other words they kind of take apart the
0:51:53 arguments and they think okay well you
0:51:55 know like are there good arguments
0:51:58 against the eternity of the world for
0:51:59 The Eternity of the world what about all
0:52:00 this Infinity stuff it gets very
0:52:02 complicated blah blah blah blah and you
0:52:04 don't get the sense that um you
0:52:07 certainly don't get the sense that it's
0:52:08 uh like a topic that can no longer be
0:52:10 rationally discussed to the contrary you
0:52:13 have you know
0:52:14 huge theological philosophical works
0:52:17 that have you know 100 page long
0:52:19 discussion of The Eternity of the world
0:52:21 like weighing up the arguments for and
0:52:24 against so it just is something that
0:52:26 gets more and more attention as it goes
0:52:28 along but just you know I mean you
0:52:30 mentioned avarice's response to the
0:52:32 incoherence of the philosophers the
0:52:33 incoherence of the incoherency somewhat
0:52:36 conversely uh called it and then you
0:52:37 mentioned all these other philosophers
0:52:38 in the centuries after who continue to
0:52:40 uh entertain the ideas of the in terms
0:52:42 of the Universe I was going to ask you
0:52:43 just how influential was Al gazali's uh
0:52:47 critique of IBN Cena it seems what
0:52:48 you're saying wasn't influential at all
0:52:50 that people continued these philosophers
0:52:52 continue to argue
0:52:54 um for the for the eternity of the world
0:52:56 the impression I get you know as a
0:52:59 Layman was uh of Al gazali's Supreme
0:53:02 dominant field that you're saying in
0:53:05 fact uh that maybe that's mistaken there
0:53:07 was actually quite a diverse range yeah
0:53:10 I think I think he's influential as
0:53:13 certainly his arguments against the
0:53:15 eternity of the world are influential
0:53:17 I think the idea that we're going to be
0:53:20 able to stop people from saying this
0:53:22 kind of thing by getting someone to come
0:53:24 along and kill them all if they do that
0:53:27 that didn't happen for sure in part
0:53:30 because like who's supposed to do that
0:53:31 so there's no established church in the
0:53:34 Islamic world in the way that there is
0:53:35 in Christian Europe where there's no
0:53:37 Pope there's no Bishops right basically
0:53:40 what you've got is religious Scholars
0:53:42 and jurists and then secular
0:53:45 um you know princes and Warlords and I
0:53:48 just sort of what caused you that is at
0:53:50 this very time uh or perhaps later on
0:53:52 after our gazal who died in 11-11 of a
0:53:55 Common Era there was a thing called the
0:53:57 Inquisition that the Spanish Inquisition
0:53:58 but there was a uh other inquisitions uh
0:54:01 uh founded by the the Catholic church
0:54:03 but there was no apart from one brief
0:54:05 moment uh much earlier to do with the
0:54:08 metazolites or whatever
0:54:10 um where they enforce Orthodoxy on
0:54:12 everyone uh you know the creativeness of
0:54:14 the Quran and so on that seems to be an
0:54:16 exceptional episode in Islamic history
0:54:18 that there was no normally there was no
0:54:20 Inquisition kind of lurking keeping
0:54:23 everyone in check in fact there was
0:54:24 quite open discourse in contrast to the
0:54:27 situation in Catholic Europe yeah that's
0:54:30 right I mean I I think actually the the
0:54:33 failure of what you're calling what
0:54:34 you're referring to there from the 9th
0:54:36 century the mehna where they tried to
0:54:38 enforce the CR the belief in the um
0:54:40 creativeness of the Quran the fact that
0:54:42 that was a complete disaster Maybe
0:54:44 warned later
0:54:46 political leaders from trying the same
0:54:48 thing we shouldn't by the way
0:54:51 um sort of paint to Rosie a picture here
0:54:53 so for example if someone comes along
0:54:55 and tries to convert sunnis to Shiites
0:54:58 in them area that's controlled by sunnis
0:55:02 that could definitely get them in
0:55:04 trouble yeah yeah right but so this is
0:55:07 much more of a limited claim so the
0:55:09 point is that in general it doesn't seem
0:55:11 like
0:55:12 political defensive Orthodoxy was a
0:55:16 constraint on philosophical inquiry in
0:55:18 the Islamic world the way that it
0:55:20 actually was in the Latin Christian
0:55:21 World although even there probably
0:55:23 wasn't as
0:55:24 efficacious a form of mind control as
0:55:27 that they were hoping and is often
0:55:30 thought
0:55:31 um but in terms of like the the the uh
0:55:34 influence of ghazali on the the actual
0:55:36 debate
0:55:38 um he these are certainly a work that
0:55:40 continues to be read so for example
0:55:42 there's an episode from the early
0:55:44 ottoman period where two ottoman
0:55:46 Scholars were given were kind of like
0:55:48 invited to perform in a contest where
0:55:50 they judged whether hazale's arguments
0:55:53 against in Messina were good or not
0:55:57 right and the and the sultan gave a
0:55:59 prize to the person who gave the best
0:56:00 evaluation uh wonderful yeah and um I
0:56:04 think I think the guy wins a horse on a
0:56:06 robe or something like that
0:56:08 19th century or earlier this must be
0:56:11 something like that's a good question I
0:56:14 think it's something like 15th century
0:56:16 yeah very long time yeah it's fairly
0:56:21 early in the ottoman period right
0:56:23 um so uh so that's that's pretty cool
0:56:27 um also in the in the area where is
0:56:30 active which is Muslim Spain
0:56:32 uh you have quite a few discussions of
0:56:35 the attorney of the attorney of the
0:56:36 world and not just by admirusht and
0:56:38 something that I find interesting and
0:56:41 intriguing and kind of hard to explain
0:56:43 is that there seems to be an emerging
0:56:46 consensus in the
0:56:48 Islamic Spanish context where people say
0:56:53 actually the argument's foreign Against
0:56:57 The Eternity of the world are not really
0:57:01 um decisive yeah so you can argue so
0:57:06 maimonides in particular the great
0:57:08 Jewish philosopher who's originally from
0:57:11 Islamic Spain but then moves with his
0:57:13 family when he's young and winds up in
0:57:15 Cairo he uh he says well there's there's
0:57:18 Arguments for The Eternity of the world
0:57:20 and against the eternity of the world
0:57:21 but none of them actually prove anything
0:57:22 they're just kind of maybe rhetorically
0:57:25 convincing or dialectically convincing
0:57:27 so he says that the best strategy is to
0:57:31 sh is to prove that God exists on the
0:57:34 assumption that the universe is eternal
0:57:35 and on the assumption that it's not
0:57:37 Eternal and you can get the same result
0:57:40 either way
0:57:41 um
0:57:42 so basically you can use Aristotle's
0:57:45 argument for God assuming the world is
0:57:46 eternal or you can say more quickly that
0:57:49 if the universe was created and with the
0:57:51 first moment in time then God must have
0:57:53 created it and either way you get God so
0:57:55 it doesn't matter in a sense there's a
0:57:57 big scholarly controversy about what
0:57:59 maimonides view actually was about this
0:58:02 but like at least
0:58:05 superficially what he's saying is Well
0:58:07 it's hard to tell but it doesn't matter
0:58:09 because you can show that God exists
0:58:10 either way another
0:58:13 um Spanish Muslim philosopher named M2
0:58:15 file
0:58:16 in a really interesting work called
0:58:18 height in yakthan does the same thing so
0:58:21 he says well let's prove it with both
0:58:23 assumptions and this kind of what you
0:58:26 might call a kind of compromise View
0:58:28 or ironic view like well let's not try
0:58:31 to figure it out let's just show that
0:58:32 God would have to exist either way
0:58:34 that's something that then got
0:58:36 um kind of passed on to the Latin
0:58:38 tradition and Thomas Aquinas takes that
0:58:41 position as well so he says that they
0:58:43 argue yeah so he says that the arguments
0:58:45 for and against the eternity of the
0:58:47 world the rational arguments are not
0:58:49 decisive we know from the Bible that the
0:58:52 Universe was created with a first moment
0:58:53 in time because the Book of Genesis
0:58:58 philosophically you can't tell right
0:59:00 right so the only way to know would be
0:59:02 through Revelation yes yeah well
0:59:07 um
0:59:08 uh conclusion then Peter what are you
0:59:11 working on at the moment anything
0:59:13 um that we might expect to be published
0:59:15 soon um yeah actually
0:59:18 um so one thing it has a lot to do with
0:59:20 what we were talking about with the um
0:59:21 kind of response to ghazali so in the
0:59:24 12th and 13th centuries
0:59:26 so I've been running a project uh that's
0:59:29 funded by the German research Council
0:59:31 the DFG toy shows command shaft
0:59:35 um which is uh called The Heirs of
0:59:37 avasana Errors like h-e-i-r-s
0:59:41 so the sort of looking at the legacy of
0:59:44 the Messina and the 12th and 13th
0:59:46 centuries and we're producing a series
0:59:48 of source books which translate chunks
0:59:50 of arguments
0:59:51 on a whole range of different issues
0:59:53 including the eternity of the world
0:59:55 where I've Messina's views were debated
0:59:57 by philosophers kind of starting with
0:59:59 Chris Ali and then going on for the next
1:00:01 couple of hundred years
1:00:03 um I mean actually they keep debating it
1:00:05 for much more than 200 years but this is
1:00:06 the period we're looking at so we're
1:00:09 producing uh three volumes worth of um
1:00:13 of source books where where you're
1:00:16 translating lots of material from all
1:00:18 the different authors who are alive then
1:00:20 and basically trying to point out that
1:00:23 there's a kind of parallel development
1:00:25 to what we see in with Latin
1:00:26 scholasticism in Europe where there's
1:00:28 this massive argument Rich very
1:00:30 technical very interesting body of
1:00:33 philosophical literature which most
1:00:35 people don't know about and hopefully
1:00:36 will make it accessible with the Source
1:00:38 book so that's something that's coming
1:00:39 in German though no no in English or
1:00:43 English so the German
1:00:45 research council is sponsoring you to do
1:00:47 something in English no that's very
1:00:49 open-minded that's uh I didn't expect we
1:00:51 wouldn't do that Oxford and Cambridge we
1:00:53 wouldn't produce something and then do
1:00:54 it in Spanish or something we would it
1:00:57 would only be in English um I used to
1:00:59 write in Latin at Oxford yeah this is
1:01:01 true this is true uh yes past is a
1:01:04 better analogy well I think there's a um
1:01:06 I think there's a rule here at my
1:01:07 University that you can you can submit
1:01:09 your work in German English or Latin
1:01:13 really can hear church bells in the
1:01:15 background are these University Church
1:01:17 bells no that's just my local church
1:01:19 okay I think it was just some medieval
1:01:21 thing um well gosh in Latin as well even
1:01:24 today
1:01:25 um so well thank you very much indeed uh
1:01:27 Peter for your time your expertise your
1:01:30 erudition and your entertaining insights
1:01:32 uh it's fascinating so I actually do
1:01:34 recommend uh this incoherence to the
1:01:36 philosophers by Al gazali uh in this
1:01:38 translation particularly Michael uh
1:01:40 marmara I think it's the uh uh the
1:01:43 Bingham Young University press uh which
1:01:46 uh I was gonna say bizarrely but I think
1:01:48 they're the Mormon press uh um so but
1:01:51 nevertheless they are um a mainstream uh
1:01:54 Publishers and do a lot of these and you
1:01:56 can read more of uh IBN Cena although
1:01:58 he's known in the west as something
1:01:59 slightly different
1:02:00 um some of these points about the
1:02:02 eternity of the world and so on in his
1:02:03 metaphysics uh in that volume translated
1:02:06 by the same guy and published by the
1:02:08 same press so thank you again Peter for
1:02:12 your time really apprec thank you thanks
1:02:14 for having me on again until next time