The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

II. Arabian Philosopher Averroes Projects Crisis

Then came AVERROES, or Abul Walid Muhammed ben Ahmad ibn Roshd (c. 1126-1198), most celebrated of all medieval Arabian philosophers, of Cordova, Spain. He was equally esteemed in Christian and Arabian circles, and was not only a physician and illustrious commentator on Aristotle but a recognized jurist, as well as author of numerous works. And he was conspicuously competent in both Islamic and Aristotelian philosophy. As a result he came to exert a marked influence on the “soul” controversy of the centuries, injecting an element into the discussion that continued on to Protestant Reformation times. Averroes was recognized as one of the outstanding thinkers of the day, sometimes being called “the omniscient,” because of his learning. (Picture on page 16.) CFF2 18.1

But this Arabian peripatetic (follower of Aristotle) created consternation by challenging the Innate Immortality of the soul, thereby becoming a symbol of the concept that both body and soul “ceased to live when they died.” There were other factors, but that was the offensive one. And for more than three centuries almost all who held to the sleep of the soul had the epithet of “Averroist” hurled at them. Scholarly historian Peter Bayle says, “He taught the mortality of the human soul,” and that man does not have an eternal nature that never dies. ⁷ CFF2 18.2

Averroes was for a time professor at the University of Morocco, with the brilliant Jewish Maimonides, to be noted shortly, as one of his star pupils. And in his home town (Cordova), as well as in Seville, he held two high offices—chief magistrate and chief religious leader. Furthermore, since he was the outstanding commentator on the philosophy of Aristotle, by the thirteenth century his treatise became the standard textbook not only in Moslem circles, but in Christian universities as well, including the university of Padua, Italy, and the Sorbonne in Paris, then the chief theological school of Christendom. According to Prof. Ezra Abbot, librarian of Harvard a century ago: CFF2 18.3

“The commentaries of Averroes on Aristotle were so famous in the Middle Ages that they gained for him the title of ‘the Soul of Aristotle,’ and ‘the commentator.’ He maintained the unity of the intellectual principle, and rejected the doctrine of individual immortality.” ⁸ CFF2 19.1

It is to be remembered that Arabic, or Moorish, erudition was pre-eminent in the Middle Ages and profoundly influenced the learning of the Western world. ⁹ It definitely molded the scholasticism of the Middle Ages, for the church was committed to a philosophic faith, and bent her energies to harmonizing faith and reason on that basis. But the reasoning that came from philosophy was received to no small degree through Arabian channels, with religious faith having its acknowledged source in ecclesiastical authority. CFF2 19.2

The challenges of Averroes as to the traditional immortality of the soul postulate created a panic in Islamic circles. They were, of course, in direct conflict with the Mohammedan concept of a paradise of eternal delights and a hell of endless torment on which the Koran dilates. Averroes was blindly devoted to Aristotle and the Aristotelian doctrine of the soul, more so than to the religion of Mohammed. CFF2 19.3

Though celebrated for his personal virtues, Averroes was nevertheless charged with heresy concerning the soul. He was condemned by the caliph, and his goods and estate were confiscated. Because of his views he was banished to the Jewish quarters of Cordova. Fleeing to Fez, he was nevertheless quickly seized and imprisoned. Some argued that he deserved death, but milder counsel prevailed, and instead he was placed at the gate of the Mosque, where the devout might spit in his face on the way to their prayers. He was forced under pressure to “recant.” However, the tide turned, and in time he was again made governor and restored by royal mandate. Such was his strange career. CFF2 19.4

“Averroism” as related to immortalism was thus a new “heresy” to be refuted in Christian circles. Against it Thomas Aquinas, the “Angelic Doctor,” wrote one of his books. But scholastic philosophy was for centuries divided on this very question—the “‘Thomists,’ or followers of Aquinas, affirming the soundness of the philosophic form of faith, and the ‘Scotists,’” the followers of Duns Scotus, the “Subtle Doctor,” denying it. Scotus maintained that immortality is not provable by the light of nature and philosophy alone, but must rest on divine revelation for conclusive evidence. Scotus went so far as to aver that those who reposed the burden for their faith elsewhere were unworthy of the name Christian. Nature and reason offered probabilities but not proofs. On such a basis they might believe but they could not know. ¹⁰ CFF2 20.1

So it was that the “defection” of Averroes came profoundly to affect scholastic Christianity. But by the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the disciples of Aristotle were divided into two sects—the Averrdists and the Alexandrians. Thus it was that finally, in 1513, Leo X felt compelled to issue his epochal bull instructing the philosophers not to teach the mortality of the soul, as will later be noted, declaring that the distinction that had been made between the deductions of reason and the decrees of the church, and which had now come under censure, were invalid. So Leo X, sustained by the Fifth Lateran Council, came to declare the immortality of the soul an article of the Catholic faith. This will take on added significance as we come to Pomponatius of Italy, who lived in the time just preceding Luther. Thus much by way of a flash preview. CFF2 20.2