No, that's Averroism, not actually Averroes himself in his views on unicity. What you're describing is how one branch of Averroists centuries later defined their views of Aristotelianism. Still, he did mention two ways to the truth. He did not say this was divided between evidence and religion however but prophesy (revelation) and rationality. Both of which leads to faith.
Actually, that is
what Averroes himself said. The problem here is that you're translating his arguments using a different definition of faith than I am (sometimes; your definition is shifting occasionally, as I'll show in a bit). You're using faith as a synonym for "religious belief". As in "my faith is Islam". (Or possibly, as confidence, as in "I have faith in the teachings of Islam".)
I'm using the definition of faith as a method
of believing, not as a belief. Faith is not the end point, it is how you get there. This is why I can contrast it with considering observations, and taking conclusions from reasoning - all of them are methods
to get to a belief, not beliefs themselves. I am not contrasting "beliefs" with "ways to believe"; that would make no sense, right?
As I've been saying, there are only 3 ways - methods
- by which you can come to a belief:
- Evidence - observing things in the natural universe with our senses. (This is what science largely relies on.)
- Reason - using our reasoning faculties to figure things out rationally. (This is what philosophy largely relies on.)
- Faith - believing by 'feeling'... just 'knowing' something is true, without relying on observation or reason. (This is what religion largely relies on.)
Back in the days of Averroes, they didn't differentiate between 1 and 2 - everything was "philosophy". Much later philosophy was split into philosophy and "natural philosophy", or science, but at the time, when people like Averroes referred to "philosophy" and "reason", they're actually lumping 1 and 2 together. So to Averroes there was only:
- Evidence/Reason - observing things in the natural universe with our senses or using our reasoning faculties to figure things out rationally.
- Faith - believing by 'feeling'... just 'knowing' something is true, without relying on observation or reason.
So when you say "prophesy (revelation) and rationality are two separate things but both lead to faith", I would say there are several things wrong with that sentence. The first is that faith is not something that gets "led to". Faith is a method
, not a destination. "Religious belief" is a (possible) destination, but "faith" can't be. So first off, I would correct that sentence to "prophesy (revelation) and rationality are two separate things but both lead to religious belief".
But the second thing wrong with that sentence is that you're comparing apples and oranges. One the one hand you talk about rationality as a method
to religious belief... but you contrast that with "prophecy (revelation)". That's not a method for believing something, it's a source; once you've been given a prophecy or revelation, you then
have to use some method for deciding whether to believe that prophecy/revelation or not. But which method? The answer's right there in what you've written; it's being contrasted with reason (and, remember that at the time they lumped reason and observation together). So, what are you really
trying to say when you say "prophesy (revelation) and rationality are two separate things but both lead to religious belief"? You're actually saying "faith and rationality are two separate things but both lead to religious belief", which is what Averroes meant, and what I said he meant.
If you want to use "faith" as a synonym for "belief" - rather than as a method of believing, as I have - then a lot of what you've been saying is actually incoherent. Like saying philosophers talk about "Faith versus Reason". If faith is a belief, and reason is a way
to believe, then that makes no sense - it's like saying "Home versus Bus", where "home" is the destination and "bus" is the way to get there.
But if faith is a method
for believing something, and the only other method Averroes knew about was reason/evidence (ie, rationality), then it's obvious what he was saying, in modern terms: "reason/evidence and faith are two different things, but both lead to 'truth'".
If you don't like the terms I'm using, that's fine; they're not the only
way you can talk about these things. But you should clearly
define the terms you're using, then, and stick tightly to those definitions, because you have been using some terms vaguely, with shifting definitions, and leading to incoherence when the various things you've said are all put together. Once the terms are clearly defined - whatever they are, we should end up with the same conclusions. All the problems are really arising from confounding the various definitions of faith (and, earlier, of reason).