Divine vs. the State of Nature

Ibn Tufayl offers two physically and ideologically competing accounts for Hayy's creation. The first parallels the birth of Moses: an infant cast away into a river to sail the waters. This is supposed to draw a religious connection to Hayy's birth. The second account of creation is that of nature: a spontaneous generation into the world alone on the island. The former emphasizes religion while the latter puts a spotlight on the power of nature. I think Ibn Tufayl is engaging the reader to determine the source of knowledge. Moses and religious doctrine posit that knowledge comes from god—god is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, so god will guide and educate you. Whereas the naturally spontaneous account of creation emphasizes how nature is what educates humankind. We are experimentally educated beings—i.e. we react to empirical circumstances based on similar feelings we have experienced in the past. Therefore, the entity that will educate Hayy is nature—he will learn from trial and error through experience. 

Now being deeper into the book, we know more about Hayy's actual experiences on the island. However, it is interesting that Ibn Tufayl decided to preface the experiences with this epistemological dichotomy. It is almost as if Ibn Tufayl is paying deference to religion and god before writing a story about empirical autodidacticism. I wonder if the time period Ibn Tufayl wrote in was a more traditionally religious one so it would be dangerous for him to fully discount religion. And how much of the time period shapes the book.