Contingency theory: An argumentation through Ibn Sina's focal point.

 Ibn Sina

A Brief History 

Ibn Sina (c. 980 - 22 June 1073), better known in the West as Avicenna,  was a prominent Muslim philosopher, polymath, and physician. 

He flourished through the Golden Age of Islam, serving in various courts within the Iranian region of the Muslim empire. He is also described as the father of modern medicine. Due to his book, translated into Latin, known as 'The canon of medicine'. The actual word used in Arabic is the word 'Qanun; قانون', which means 'law'; therefore, the literal translation of his book would be 'the law of medicine', mistranslated as canon. 

Ibn Sina, however, had other books he was well known for as well, such as 'The Book of Healing', which was a philosophical and scientific encyclopedia. He also wrote books on astronomy, geography, psychology, Islamic theology, logic, and many more.

Ibn Sina was considered one of the greatest minds of his time. He was both an avid reader and writer; however, he was selective about the books he read. He never read books, which, in his opinion, were too easy to comprehend. This made him well known for obsessing over books he found challenging or difficult to read. One of the books he obsessed over at the time was Aristotle's Metaphysics. Where he said, "I read Aristotle forty times". This could be an allegory to him having memorized Aristotle's book on metaphysics, or he actually read the book forty times. That was what people meant by obsession over work, which he found difficult to comprehend. 

From his childhood till his last breath, Ibn Sina was a through and through a 'student of knowledge'. Someone who always sought out new things to study and never settled on something he thought was inadequate or needed polishing. There's a video by a Historian named Roy Cassagranda, a professor of Government at Austin Community College, where he gives a thorough view of Ibn Sina's life in an entertaining, polished sequence.  

-I highly recommend his works as a historian-

Contingency Theory

When it comes to Ibn Sina's work on his contingency theory, I don't think it's a work I can do justice to. However, I will try my best to give his work its proper due. 

I found a blog post which I believe summarises the argument properly. It was written by a philosophy professor named Edward Feser. He breaks down the argument in the book, summarising Ibn Sina's work into fifteen main points. 

Before you read the fifteen points, however, I would advise watching the following video in order to completely understand the fifteen points and not misunderstand the summary

1. Something exists

2. Whatever exists is either possible or necessary

3. If that something which exists is necessary, then there is a necessary existent

4. Whatever is possible has a cause

5. So if that something which exists is possible, then it has a cause

Ibn Sina then speaks about the metaphysical status of the totality.

6. The totality of possible things is either necessary in itself or possible in itself

7. The totality cannot be necessary in itself since it exists only through the existence of its members

8. So the totality of possible things is possible itself

9. So the totality of possible things has a cause

10. This cause is either internal to the totality or external to it

11. If it is internal to the totality, then it is either necessary or possible

12. It cannot be necessary, because the totality is comprised of possible things

13. And it also cannot in that case be possible, since as the cause of all possible things would in that case be its own cause, which would make it necessary and not possible after all, which is a contradiction

14. So the cause of the totality of possible things is not internal to the totality, but external to it

15. But, if it is outside the totality of possible things, then it is necessary

16. So there is a necessary existent

This argument, proposed by Ibn Sina, follows through steps where he does not immediately jump to a conclusion. In case anyone reading this post misunderstands his argument, the necessary he points to in this argument, he would say, is God. However, he simply says a necessary existence. That existence can be anything. 

Now, if you would like, you can start arguing about why it would be God or not, and although Ibn Sina does not touch upon the infinite regression fallacy, I will. It is another cosmological argument about why there has to be a necessary starting point. While it does not expand on Ibn Sina's theory, it definitely supports it.

-Longer video explanation of Ibn Sina's contingency theory. In case you are still confused-

Infinite Regress 

This section will be small compared to the rest. The infinite regress theory is a simple concept, to the point that even a child can understand it. 

This theory is also known as the Infinite regress fallacy. 

Let's do this through an example. 

Per se, you are a sniper. You have the target you are supposed to 'assassinate' locked in sight (please keep in mind this is an example, I hope you're not actually trying to snipe anyone). However, in order to pull the trigger, you need to receive permission from your supervisor. Your supervisor needs permission from his superior. His superior needs permission from someone higher, and the chain goes on infinitely. Now the question becomes, would you ever reach a point in time where you would pull the trigger? Or would there ever be a point in time when you would be holding the trigger (I.e, mission would be confirmed)? The answer is no. 

The infinite regress fallacy arises when an argument relies on an endless chain of reasoning, where each premise depends on a previous one without ever reaching a definitive starting point or conclusion. You wouldn't reach a point in time where you pull the trigger, let alone receive the command to assassinate someone. Similarly, that is what the infinite regress fallacy proposes. A series of infinite events will never lead up to a time where something actualizes. 

In the case of science, the Big Bang theory would be one of the most popular explanations as the starting point or necessary 'existence'. For people of religion, however, God would be that starting point which caused the Big Bang and everything that follows (depending on which religion you follow). 

In case I did not do this theory justice, here is a philosopher who explains it much better than I did

And in case you are interested, you can take a look at this Encyclopedia.  

My thoughts and reflections

Whether you want to relate Ibn Sina's theory to the Big Bang or not, the fact remains that if that necessary existence isn't God, then you have no issues. Your world becomes much simpler, and explaining things you observe will be explainable using human nature; however, morality becomes quite a subjective matter. We will all perish into nothing the same way we came, and whether you'd like to believe we will merge with the universe or not, we're all gone, and you should make the most of life because it is precious and the only life you have.

This can be comforting to some. However, for some others, not really. Others would like to believe this life is not all there is, and there is an afterlife. A life with no suffering, where you will be reunited with your loved ones. However, if you do choose to believe in God, then you have to answer other moral qualms depending on what religion you subscribe to. How do you know which religion is true? If you believe in an all-good God, then why does he allow suffering? If you believe God is all Omnipotent and Ominiscient, He should have known what humans would do, and why didn't he prevent it?  Finally, if there is a God who has power over all things and controls everything, how much of our actions are really ours? Are we free? Do we choose what we choose to do? These questions can be quite detrimental for some people who face them.

This is now where my problem with philosophy arises. Just as philosophy is a way of guidance and a means to reach the truth, so is religion. No two religions are exactly alike, and when philosophers study religion, most tend to place it under one umbrella as though the concept of God is universal. 

Ask a Buddhist or a Hindu about their concept of God, they won't be the same. Or a Christian and a Jew. They will give you different answers. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, sikhs, Zoroastrians, Jews, etc.... You won't find two identical answers. You might find similarities in the tenets of the religion; however, not in the concept of God. 

I believe those existential questions do have answers. People will find answers to them; however, whether these answers satisfy the individual or not is not dependent on the religion. Some answers from religions go against their scripture, some do not. Some believe God is not all-powerful, some do.  Questioning things that you believe are true is always a good thing. The moment you place yourself in a bubble where you stop asking because you believe you have arrived at the truth is when I say a person has failed in doing truth justice. Because truth will always encourage you to challenge and test whether it stands against all other odds (or answers).  

Inas Issa

Dr. Oliver

PHIL 1010-006