"The Burhan" by Mohammed Hijab explores philosophical and theological arguments for the existence of God, particularly focusing on Ibn Sina’s Burhan argument. Hijab reintroduces classical proofs from Islamic philosophy, emphasizing the necessity of a "wajib al-wujud" (necessary existence) to explain the existence of the universe. He contrasts these arguments with modern atheistic perspectives, such as those of Richard Dawkins, and presents two hypothetical characters, Richard and Betty, that are amalgams of atheists and agnostics he has met and had discussions with, as application scenes. The book aims to make the Burhān argument accessible for modern apologetic use, offering a rational defense of theism in contemporary debates.
IBN SINA’S ARGUMENTS
Hijab starts by briefly outlining Ibn Sina’s arguments mainly from his books Metaphysics of the Cure, The Deliverance and The Pointers and Reminders. He refers to these arguments’ relevance and function in relation to contemporary debates between atheists and theists. Ibn Sini starts by establishing ‘existence’ as the most foundational, transcendental, and universal category of analysis. Then argues that:
1. Contingent beings: Everything in the universe is contingent, meaning it is dependent on something else for its existence and could either exist or not exist.
2. Inability of contingent beings to explain their own existence: A chain or collection of contingent beings cannot explain their own existence because they require an external cause. An infinite regress of causes is impossible since it does not provide an ultimate explanation for existence.
3. Necessary Existence: To avoid infinite regress, there must be a necessary being (wajib al-wujud) that exists by its own nature and is uncaused. This necessary being is the source of all contingent beings.
4. Unity and Indivisibility: The necessary being must be unique and indivisible because if there were multiple necessary beings, they would differ in some way, which would imply contingency.
MEDIEVAL RECEPTION
Hijab presents the responses of some Muslims and Christians theologists to Ibn Sina’s argument. Despite the reformulations, and criticisms responses of the argument, he believes that all of them converge on the conclusion of the reality of a “necessary existence.”
AlGhazali’s Rejection of an Infinite Regress of Things and his Insistence on a Godly Will
Hijab skillfully contrasts al-Ghazali’s criticisms of Ibn Sina, focusing on the issue of infinite regress and the eternality of the universe. Al- Ghazali, unlike Ibn Sina, rejected the notion of an eternal universe, instead emphasizing the role of God's will in creation. Hijab also introduces al- Ghazali’s 'argument from particularization,' which argues that God's volitional power is responsible for actualizing certain possibilities over others. This aspect of al- Ghazali’s thought, according to Hijab, offers theists a stronger foundation for defending the idea of a personal, volitional Creator, which is not as emphasized in Ibn Sina 's emanationism.
Ibn Rushd (Averroes), the Modal Categories, and the True Nature of Possibility
Hijab also highlights Ibn Rushd’s critique of Ibn Sina’s modal categories, particularly the concept of mumkin al-wujud (possible or contingent existence). Ibn Rushd criticizes Ibn Sina for not properly defining contingent existence and argues that it should be based on what is “generated or destroyed,” which is empirically verifiable. He further accuses Ibn Sina of equivocating between causes and contingencies, a point that Hijab addresses by emphasizing the importance of clear distinctions between dependent, contingent, and caused things in any argument for God's existence.
Thomas Aquinas and the Third Way
Moreover, Hijab explores the similarities and differences between Ibn Sina’s cosmological argument and the Third Way presented by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas’s argument from contingency, which emphasizes the need for a self-sufficient being, mirrors aspects of Ibn Sina’s reasoning. However, while Aquinas argues from the perspective of generation and destruction, Ibn Sina 's argument centers on the tarkib argument, which asserts that anything composed of parts is contingent and therefore dependent.
One key point raised by Hijab is how Aquinas’s argument may fall prey to the fallacy of composition, which assumes that because parts of a whole have a certain property, the whole must also have it. Ibn Sina, on the other hand, avoids such objections through his composition argument, which directly addresses the nature of the necessary existence. The discussion of Aquinas’s argument, particularly in comparison with Ibn Sina’s, helps illuminate the strengths of the Islamic philosophical tradition in addressing Western objections.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s Part/Attribute Quandary and Apologetic Recommendations
Ibn Taymiyyah, in contrast to Ibn Sina, makes a clear distinction between ‘parts’ and ‘attributes’ when discussing the nature of composition. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, a part is materially added or removed, like planks of wood in a ship, while attributes are intrinsic and necessary, and cannot be imagined in another form. This distinction plays a crucial role in his rejection of overly complex arguments for God’s existence, particularly when addressing laypeople. Ibn Taymiyyah’s approach resonates with his broader epistemological view that arguments for God’s existence should be kept simple and direct when addressing a general audience, as seen in his reflection on Qur’an: “Or were they created from nothing or are they their own creators?” (Al-Tur:35).
The exploration of these views helps to highlight the effectiveness of simple reasoning in apologetic discourse. Ibn Taymiyyah’s method aligns with the traditionalist stance that complex philosophical arguments may not resonate with everyone, a point echoed by thinkers like Al-Ghazali, who advocate for using foundational questions like 'Is the universe dependent or independent?' to engage the average person in meaningful reflection. Hijab underscores how this approach remains crucial today, especially in countering modern atheistic arguments.
Duns Scotus’s Contribution to the Argument
Duns Scotus’ cosmological and ontological arguments share notable parallels with the reasoning of figures such as al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah. Scotus advances a version of the contingency argument that asserts the necessity of an uncaused cause by presenting two types of causation—accidentally ordered and essentially ordered. While an accidentally ordered cause can cease without halting subsequent effects (e.g., a grandfather dying while his son and grandson continue to live), an essentially ordered cause cannot, which aligns with the views of Aristotle and Ibn Sins against infinite regress.
Scotus’ ontological argument focuses on the impossibility of two incompatible independent entities coexisting, ultimately leading to the necessity of a singular uncaused, independent being. This argument is elegantly summarized as ‘there cannot be an infinite regress of dependent things.’ In this way, Scotus mirrors the line of thought from Ibn Ṭufayl and other Islamic thinkers, suggesting that causation and dependency form the basis for proving Allah’s existence.
MODERN USAGES OF COSMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
Cosmological Arguments
Hijab discusses the Kalam cosmological argument, particularly as presented by William Lane Craig, and its controversies. The argument posits that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. Craig supports the second premise by arguing for a static theory of time, the impossibility of an actual infinite, and challenging quantum notions of loose causality.
However, Hijab argues that these arguments may be unnecessary and even detrimental to the theistic cause. Relying on mathematical concepts like infinite sets or scientific theories like the Big Bang can make the argument vulnerable to challenges from those who are more knowledgeable in these fields. The corrigible nature of science means that current evidence can be contradicted by future discoveries, undermining the timeless relevance of such arguments.
He suggests that it might be more effective to focus on the argument from composition, which does not require delving into complex mathematical or scientific concepts.
Leibniz's Contingency Argument and the Principle of Sufficient Reason
Hijab then relates to Leibniz's contingency argument as an alternative to the Kalam cosmological argument. The argument posits that every contingent fact (a fact that could have been otherwise) has an explanation, and since the universe is contingent, it must have an explanation. This explanation is the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR).
He notes that the PSR is a simple argument that can be used in apologetic and pastoral settings. However, the use of the term "explanation" might be problematic, especially in cosmological contexts. Additionally, the reliance on modal logic and possible worlds can open the argument up to criticisms like modal nihilism.
Ontological Arguments and Plantinga's Victorious Argument
Hijab analyzes ontological arguments for the existence of God, focusing on Alvin Plantinga's "victorious" modal ontological argument. Plantinga reformulates Anselm's original argument, emphasizing the concept of a maximally perfect being.
He highlights the key premise of the argument: existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. Leibniz argued that this premise is problematic, as all perfections can coexist in a single entity. Plantinga, however, maintains the premise and uses modal logic to argue for the necessary existence of God.
The author then discusses potential criticisms of Plantinga's argument, including the use of “possible worlds” and the potential for parody arguments. Rasmussen and Pruss argue that to sustain the argument, one must invoke an idea that positive states of affairs are more conceivable than negative ones.
Gödel’s Ontological Argument
Hijab moves on to Gödel's ontological argument, which depends on two axioms: positivity and entailment. The concept of "positive" has been debated, with some interpreting it in a moral or aesthetic sense. However, if "existing necessarily" and "possibly causing something" are considered positive, the argument is valid.
While Gödel's argument is valid in modal logic, it requires specialized knowledge and may be difficult to understand for lay people. Additionally, the assumptions underlying the argument can be challenged.
Hijab compares Gödel's argument with other ontological and cosmological arguments, concluding that while Gödel's argument is more complex and less accessible, it offers a more rigorous and defensible proof of God's existence. The other arguments, such as the Burhan and Tarkib arguments, are simpler and more accessible but may be less rigorous.
Hijab’s Arguments for God's Existence
Hijab presents a series of arguments for the existence of God, drawing inspiration from the Burhan argument. These arguments focus on concepts like dependence, contingency, necessity, and causation.
Key arguments:
Proof 1: There cannot be a world with only dependent things; a necessary existence is required to explain existence.
Proof 2: Necessary facts presuppose existence, and the necessary existence must be independent and eternal.
Proof 3: A contingent universe was arranged by something else, ultimately leading to a necessary existence.
Proof 4: The fine-tuning of the universe requires a necessary existence, regardless of whether it's necessary or contingent.
Proof 5: The universe is caused, and a necessary existence is required as the ultimate cause.
Additional Arguments:
Following the proof of a necessary existence, Hijab offer arguments that establish the oneness of this existence:
1. The Uniqueness Argument: If a necessary existence exists, it cannot be any other way. Hence, having two necessary existences would imply a differentiating factor, making one contingent rather than necessary. This would disqualify the second from being necessary at all.
2. The Ultimate Capacity Argument: A necessary existence is responsible for all things, implying ultimate capacity over everything. Thus, nothing else could have this capacity, further proving that only one necessary being exists.
3. The Argument from Nature’s Regularity: For the stability, uniformity, and regularity of nature, only one agent can be arranging the world. The existence of multiple independent minds would still depend on the one necessary being, responsible for everything that exists.
OBJECTIONS
Hijab addresses common objections to the cosmological and ontological arguments. These objections include:
- The fallacy of composition: he argues that the fallacy of composition does not apply to the arguments, as the dependence of a whole on its parts is a definitional claim.
- An infinite universe: he responds that an infinite universe is still dependent and contingent and does not affect the validity of the arguments.
- "The universe just is": he affirms that this objection is uninformative and does not provide a genuine explanation.
- Causal skepticism and retro-causality: he asserts that these objections are not relevant to the arguments presented, as they do not rely on a specific conception of causation or time.
- Something from nothing: he states that the concept of "nothing" is often misunderstood and that the existence of something from nothing is not necessarily contradictory.
Conclusion
The book provides a thorough exploration of the Burhan argument for God's existence, tracing its historical development and addressing objections. It emphasizes the argument's effectiveness, especially in apologetic and pastoral settings, while also acknowledging the growing importance of addressing agnosticism in contemporary demographics. Hijab believes that in addition to rational proofs, emotional intelligence and personal connections are essential in effectively convincing others of God's existence.
