II. Truth by Sense Perception.
"In this and similar cases of
sense-perception the sense as judge forms his judgement, but
another judge, the intellect, shows him to be wrong in such
a way that the charge of falsity cannot be rebutted.
"To this I said: 'My reliance on
sense-perception also has been destroyed." Al-Ghazali.
This is a quotation from Shaykh Al-Ghazali's literary
work entitled, "Deliverance from Error (al-Munqidh min ad-Dalal),
as translated by W.M. Watt in "The Faith and Practice
of Al-Ghazali." 1
If Shaykh Al-Ghazali's statement were
true, then study of natural theology would be
impossible. Since natural theology is the study of
creation and its necessary causes, this study depends upon
sense perception to gather information about the created
order. But, if our sense perception cannot be trusted, then
neither can the
results of our experimental observations be trusted.
In Imam Al-Ghazali's pursuit to gain deliverance from
error, he argued against the validity of
sense-perception. The following is a more complete
quotation of his rationale for rejecting reliance upon sense
perception. He wrote,
"The outcome of this protracted
effort to induce doubt was that I could no longer trust
sense-perception either. Doubt began to spread here and say:
'From where does this reliance on sense-perception come? The
most powerful sense is that of sight. Yet when it looks at
the shadow (sc. Of a stick or the gnomon of a sundial), it
sees it standing still, and judges that there is no motion.
Then by experiment and observation after an hour it knows
that the shadow is moving and, moreover, that it is moving
not by fits and starts but gradually and steadily by
infinitely small distances in such a way that it is never in
a state of rest. Again, it looks at the heavenly body (sc.
The sun) and sees it small, the size of a shilling
(literally dinar); yet geometrical computations show that it
is greater than the earth in size'.
"In this and similar cases of
sense-perception the sense as judge forms his judgement, but
another judge, the intellect, shows him to be wrong in such
a way that the charge of falsity cannot be rebutted.
"To this I said: 'My reliance on
sense-perception also has been destroyed." Page 23.
Although Shaykh Al-Ghazali did not seem to realized it, he engaged in a self-refuting
argument. First, he had to
trust his visual sense to argue that the sundial appeared to be
still and he had to trust his visual sense to argue that the
shadow of the sundial had moved a distance after one
hour. If sense perception cannot be trusted, one ought
not argue there was movement or there was non-movement. In
fact, if the visual senses cannot be trusted, he could not
be sure he was looking at the shadow of a sundial. If sense
perception cannot be trusted, then who knows what he was
really looking at.
He
claimed that sense-perception's judgment was faulty, but he
based this conclusion upon sense-perception. Since he
could not trust his visual sense perception, he had no right to
ground his argument in what cannot be trusted, namely, his
sense perceptions of the movement or non-movement of the sun
dial. Likewise, he
was unjustified to claim the shadow had moved during the
passage of one hour, because he obtained his information
that the shadow had moved by looking (a sense perception) at the sundial's shadow
after one hour. But, if looking at a sundial's shadow
does not give reliable information about the status of the
sundial's shadow, then he could not be sure that the
sundial's shadow had actually moved.
Furthermore, he erroneously claimed that "the sense as
judge forms his judgement." This statement is not
sustainable. The sense of sight does not judge anything. The sense of
sight lacks mental capability. It is the intellect alone
that judges. There are not two judges, 1) the eyeball and 2)
the brain. The eyeball is like a camera, and a camera
doesn't make rational judgments. The eyeball merely records
visual images, much like a camera. It is the intellect alone
that judges whether or not the sundial is moving. In the first
case, the intellect judges there is no movement because the visual
sensory input appeared to be stationary. Hence, the
intellect judged there was no movement. In the second case,
the visual input had changed, and the intellect judged there
had to have been movement. In both cases, the eyeball, like a camera,
simply records the visual data and makes no intellectual
judgment, because it lacks mental
capabilities. In both instances, the intellect alone
interpreted the sensory data.
Al-Ghazali wrote,
"Again, it looks
at the heavenly body (sc. The sun) and sees it small, the
size of a shilling (literally dinar); yet geometrical
computations show that it is greater than the earth in
size'"
Like a camera, the eye visualizes distant
objects in smaller proportions. Does this prove that
our visual sense-perceptions
are faulty? Of course, not. We don't consider a photographic
camera to be faulty if more distant objects are smaller than
more proximate ones in a photograph. It is because the human visual sensory
system is consistent and reliable that the human intellect can
make appropriate judgments about the relationship between
distance and an object's size. Furthermore, our
geometric computations originated by first visually studying
objects, such as, spheres, cubes, triangles, etc. If
sense perception were not to be trusted, then neither should
the science of
geometry be trusted. In other words,
Imam Al-Ghazali ideas would undermine geometry itself.
For example, the eye visualizes a rod in the air to be straight. The eye visualizes the same rod in water
and different fluids to be bent at different degrees. The
human intellect cogitates upon this sensory data; and, after
considerable intellectual reflection, it
judges that different fluids have different refractive
indices. There is no tiny brain in the eyeball that
intellectually reflects upon the sensory input. The only judge of sensory data is the human mind.
The healthy eye faithfully records the
visual data. Any judgmental error that occurs is an error that
occurs in the intellect. Now, it is true that the intellect
might judge that sundial shadow does not move. However, the
intellect corrects itself when it notices that, with the passing
of time, the shadow has moved. By measuring the distance
moved, the intellect can calculate the rate of movement.
Error resides in the intellect, and not the healthy sense
organ.
In conclusion, I don't see any reason to grant Al-Ghazali's
sensory agnosticism. If the human sensory systems were not to
be trusted, then our intellect could not trust any of its
judgments about external reality.
Lastly, Allah has given humankind its sensory systems, so
that we would have the necessary means to have true knowledge of
our earthly environment. It is a negative reflection
upon Allah to think that Allah would endow creatures with sense
organs designed to give us false information. We expect good photographic devices from our local camera
shop. Surely, Allah is better than a camera shop when
it comes to providing us with two excellent visual sense
organs.
If our visual senses cannot be trusted, how can our
visual input be trusted when we look at the text of the
Bible or the Qur'an. If Shaykh Al-Ghazali's sensory
agnosticism were true, he undermines the ability to read
correctly the text of any sacred writing. If our visual
senses lack reliability, then our reading would lack
reliability too. Blind people don't have good visual
sense organs; and, therefore, they cannot visualize a
beautiful sunset or a sacred text.
Therefore, since Imam Al-Ghazali's agnosticism is not
granted, creation can be intelligibly studied to the glory
of Allah. Natural theology gives us true knowledge of
Allah. We echo the words of King Dawud,
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard." Ps
19:1-3 (NIV)
Last edited 04/02/2000
Top of Page.
|
