Averroes is a philosopher on a mission. Someone must have upset him terribly, because in The Decisive Treatise Determining the Nature of the Connection Between Religion and Philosophy, he takes great pains to not only make the point that philosophy is an essential and mandated method of worship in Islam, but also verges on implying that anyone who would try to belittle the power of philosophy is sinning. This is a powerful paper and one that could have brought much danger to Averroes if it was misunderstood. But, despite a strong streak of conceit, the arguments he makes are effective and convincing.
At the very beginning of the paper Averroes makes it clear that he is a devout Muslim (or at least is trying to give the impression of being one). From the third sentence to the last, the work is peppered with references to 'God the Exalted,' the grace of God, and the majesty of God. Part of this could be due to custom and tradition, but this reader felt that Averroes was a bit excessive -- the line from Shakespeare that comes to mind is "you doth protest too much."
One of the few mistakes I think Averroes makes in his argument was that he first tries to prove that Islam and the Koran mandate the study of philosophy. He then segues into a discussion of various methods of learning and only then does he get to the point that demonstrative reasoning (philosophy) and scripture can con conflict. Perhaps his rationalization is that it is best to start off with something powerful and show that philosophers are not merely doing something that is legal, but that they are engaged in a commanded activity. However, if the purpose of the paper is too justify the permitting of philosophy and extol its virtues, then it might have been more effective to begin not with the earth-shattering revelation of the mandated study of philosophy, but with the point that at least philosophers are doing nothing wrong because philosophy and scripture will never conflict.
Why will philosophy and scripture never conflict? According to Averroes, it is because they both lead to the truth and "truth does not oppose truth but accords with it and bears witness to it". But what basis is there for philosophy leading to demonstrative truth? Aha! That is why Averroes begins this text with the assertion that the scripture commands the study of philosophy. He is able to say that scripture would never instruct one to do something that leads to falsehoods and impiety, and since scripture mandates the study of philosophy, philosophy leads to truth.
Where Averroes differs from the Greek philosophers is that they apparently (not that I know for sure) based their faith in logic and philosophy on its self-evident correctness. That would be analogous to Averroes predicating the above argument on his own deep-seated faith in philosophy and demonstrative reasoning. Averroes will never admit to philosophy and demonstrative methods, if applied correctly, leading to false conclusions. And he can not admit to scripture, if interpreted correctly, leading to false conclusions (for that would be blasphemous). Since the only option in the case of a conflict would be for one or both to be wrong, the only logical option, given the assumption that neither one is wrong, is for there to be no conflict. It sounds straightforward, but the advance is that Averroes is essentially saying that philosophy is valid not because it appears to be so, but because of religion.
This brings us back to the beginning of the essay, where Averroes proves that religious law commands philosophy. He first assumes that philosophy is the teleological study of the world -- the study of the essence, the idea, of the items in the world. Then, he sites several verses of scripture that implore humans to study all of the things that God created and to attempt to gain an understanding of God. From this the reader is supposed to conclude that there is a mandate to philosophize. That argument makes sense, although there is nothing terribly exciting in it, unless, of course, it is made to an audience that does not agree with the conclusion. What is interesting about this argument is the paragraph that concludes "[philosophy]...is the most perfect kind of study using the most perfect kind of reasoning; and this is the kind called 'demonstration'. Perhaps this was common knowledge to Averroes' readers, but this reader is not convinced by anything in this paper that demonstrative reasoning is the highest form there is. But perhaps Averroes is defining a certain type of reasoning that is the highest and then naming it demonstration. Although that would mesh well with the overall style of the article, it does not appear to be the case.
Averroes spends a considerable amount of effort justifying the foundations of philosophy and the use of the work of the 'ancients,' as he calls them. An analogy he presents to rationalize the use of prior work is that of making a sacrifice. Just as the knife used in making the sacrifice need only meet the requirements of such a knife, irrespective of its maker, the tools used in the practice of philosophy should be judged solely on their own merit -- not on that of their makers. Although the analogy is not explicitly extended by Averroes, it is rather easy to then compare the study to the sacrifice. Perhaps Averroes is planting the thought that philosophy is like sacrifice; both are mandated by scripture and both can lead to a higher sense of religious feeling.
Averroes sets up a rather strong hierarchy based on reasoning faculty. He defines three types of valid reasoning: rhetorical, dialectical, and demonstrative and ranks them in that order from lowest to highest. It is not clear what the characteristics of each of these types is, but it is clear that there is an association between philosophy and demonstrative reasoning and that not all people have the fortitude to understand demonstrative reasoning. Anyone who wants to master the science of philosophy must not only be able to reason demonstratively, but must understand the characteristics of all forms of reasoning and understand even the underpinnings of the underpinnings of reason, on down to 'premises and their kind.'
After making clear the importance of the work of the ancients -- it would be futile to try and rediscover in one lifetime what the ancients spent generations developing -- Averroes lays down the two qualities a person who wishes to study must have. What he actually does is state that it is sinful to deny anyone who is fit to study philosophy the opportunity to do so and denying the books of the ancients, because of their essential nature, would be denying the opportunity. The two criteria a person must meet to be considered fit to study philosophy are (1) they must posses a natural intelligence and (2) the must posses religious intensity and moral virtue.
Once these criteria are out there, Averroes gives the know famous examples of a man choking on water and another man suffer from even worse diarrhea after receiving a supposed cure from Mohammed. These examples are supposed to point out that one bad apple does not spoil the bunch and that philosophy is a useful tool that will almost always be helpful, but the freak occasions on which it fails should not be used to justify its prohibition. Although this makes sense, the reader is left with the impression that Averroes is responding to some unknown antagonist.
There are restrictions on who can study philosophy because philosophy opens a broad new religious world to the philosopher. Earlier Averroes made clear that the scripture and philosophy would never contradict each other. However, he know acknowledges that it is possible for it to appear that the results of demonstrative reasoning are in conflict with the contents of scripture.
Apparent conflict is not the huge catastrophe that one might first think. After all, even 'standard' theologians and legal lawyers ( who seem to be a prime target of Averroes' scorn) consider some passages in the scripture to contradict each other -- on the surface. The mechanism that is developed to handle this situation is called an allegorical interpretation.
As might be expected, there are qualifications and restrictions placed on when an allegorical interpretation can be made and what type of interpretation it may be. At times it seems as if Averroes wants to make these restrictions as loose as possible and at other times it appears that he wants the restrictions to be prohibitive. Perhaps I am missing the distinction between a philosopher and a demonstrative thinker (or perhaps I have been working on my senior thesis for way too long). Or, this obfuscation (compare the bottom of page 297 with page 293) may be Averroes trying to conceal some revelation so only philosophers will be able to pry it from the cryptic text.
There is a danger in allegorical interpretations. If a philosopher discovers that it is necessary to abstract a non-obvious meaning from scripture so that it will not conflict with a demonstrable truth, then the philosopher can handle it. In other words, philosophers are fully qualified and willing to accept that the text may not mean exactly what it says. However, if a philosopher were to demonstrate a truth that appeared to conflict with scripture to someone uninitiated in the ways of philosophy then that person's religious life would be thrown into chaos. It would probably be clear to them that the apparent meaning of the text was not right, but they would be unable to grasp the allegorical meaning. That meaning will not be able to fill the void in their view life as it did for the philosopher. It is for this reason that the work of a philosopher must only be revealed to other philosophers or alluded to via mechanism that only the wise could master.
This is an example, says Averroes, of how the Koran appeals to all people at the level appropriate to that individual. He hits this theme several times, most noticeably at the conclusion of the essay on page 302 but also earlier at 288. No real proof that I could discern is given for this idea, but he argues that the scripture uses both direct and symbolic methods to teach, as well as using demonstrative, dialectical, and rhetorical methods. Even among the 'masses' or 'majority,' as he alternatively refers to those who lack the mental muscle to be members of the 'elite' demonstrative class, there are levels of understanding. He identifies four different 'methods of assent' that the Koran provides to those who wish to and are capable of taking advantage of them.
These methods allow even the masses to understand more than is actually written in the scripture. The beauty of having these methods is that the method of allegorical interpretation is unavailable to them, so without the methods they would b e left with the text alone, which is not even consistent in and of itself.
Ultimately, the knowledge of the philosopher is something sacred. The process of learning about God by studying the objects he created is a powerful means of gaining the leverage to make and understand allegorical interpretations that the masses can neither make nor comprehend. It is a deposit that rests with the philosopher and should not be distributed to all individuals.
Thus the essay comes full circle -- the legality of philosophy is no longer a topic for discussion. Instead, its level of sanctity is. In an essay that if full of thinly veiled retorts to unseen but obviously biting insults and critiques of philosophers and philosophy, Averroes skillfully and convincingly creates a home for the philosopher in the religion of Islam. Despite the possibility of some ulterior motive in the writing of the piece Averroes is successful in defining a mandate for the study of philosophy, laying down the criteria which must be met if philosophy is to be used as an aspect of religion, and explains away any apparent conflict between philosophy and religion as solvable by allegorically interpreting the scripture. Ultimately, conflicts should only become obvious to those members of the demonstrative class who are capable of finding an allegorical interpretation to resolve the conflict. Making the masses aware of such contradiction when they are unable to see their way out is a violation of God's will and a betrayal of the privilege of the philosopher -- it is a sin. Like much of this work, that may seem self-serving and even capricious when presented out of context, but Averroes smoothly (for the most part) pulls it off.