This is a paper by Keith Starks. It is currently unfinished so this essay will be updated when he has made all needed changes.

Philosophy/Theology Argument

            For anyone who has taken the time to understand this issue realizes it is not an easy task. To answer questions like: if philosophy and theology deal with some of the same concepts, why are they considered two different concepts? Have they ever been considered as one? If so, when and why did they split? There are different views and way to many explanations made to be fully explained. Although an attempt will be made by looking at histories events and ideas to see how they affect today.

            “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the church with Plato’s Academy, the Christian with the heretic?” Tertullian asked this question many years ago when Greco-Roman learning began to infiltrated most societies. There were some who urged the abandoning of Greco-Roman learning among the Christians because they felt such knowledge would corrupt the morality of the young and would lead Christians to doubt Scripture. Tertullian, in his book Prescriptions Against Heretics, argues that it is philosophy that supplies the heresies. He uses Colossians 2:8, “be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world and not based on Christ,” to support his argument. He also argues that, once we come to believe in Christ we have no desire to believe in anything else. Clement of Alexandria responded to this in his book, In Defense of Greek Learning. Clement argues that philosophy is a clear meaning of truth and how a person is truly learned when they are able to take what is useful (geometry, music, grammar, philosophy, etc.) and guard the faith. Saint Augustine also responded saying “believing all the branches of the pagan learning contain not only false and superstitious fantasies and burdensome studies that involve unnecessary effort, which each one of us must loathe and avoid as under Christ’s guidance we abandon the company of pagans, but also studies for liberated minds which are more appropriate to the service of the truth.” Greek learning eventually won out the day.

            There must be some mentioning of the distinction between the pre-modern and modern eras. In the pre-modern era, from recorded history to about the 1600’s, it could be agreed upon that metaphysics is the first philosophy. There are three, if I may, “categories” within metaphysics during this time: theology, cosmology and ontology. Theology saying that God exists and that everything else is contingent upon him and that the supernatural exists and does not conflict with science. Cosmology held that God is the first cause and the creator of everything. Epistemology came after metaphysics and it consisted of five “categories”: correspondence theory of truth, epistemological realism, community, hermeneutic of trust and teleological. Within the idea of the community the church viewed corporately shared beliefs to be important. The hermeneutic of trust says the content of the bible is inerrant, sufficient and authoritative. Most importantly the teleological held the idea that epistemology is dependent upon metaphysics. In some sense we can see that there is really no distinction between the two. In the modern age (1600-1950) things took a dramatic shift. Epistemology becomes the first philosophy and is no longer dependent upon metaphysics. Theology is separated from metaphysics, God’s existence is in doubt, science explains everything in the world, the individual comes before the community as a legitimate source of knowledge, the supernatural is rejected, science and reason are trusted over the Bible and people begin to hold to nominalism. Nominalism is the idea that universals no longer exist, only concrete particulars. How could have things taken such a turn like this? Who or what caused this?

            When asking somebody who, what or why about the separation of philosophy and theology many different answers will be given. Since there are so many different answers I will argue for two people and the idea of community to individual shift. One person that we cannot avoid to look at on the issue of philosophy/theology separation is Aquinas. What Aquinas did was separate what is usually called “nature and grace” on different levels. Grace on the higher (God the Creator; heaven and heavenly things; the unseen and its influence on the earth; mans soul; unity) and nature on the lower (the created; earth and earthly things; the visible and what nature and man do on earth; man’s body; diversity). Philosophy pertains to the realm in which natural reason operates and theology pertains to the realm where grace operates. In addition, Aquinas had an “incomplete view of the Fall,” says Schaeffer (which I have chosen to use much of his ideas dealing with Aquinas). Aquinas believed the will had fallen but the intellect was not affected. Through this, man’s intellect was seen as autonomous. According to Schaeffer this resulted in the development of natural theology. Natural theology is a theology that could be pursued independently from the Scriptures. “Aquinas had opened the way to an autonomous humanism, an autonomous philosophy; and once the movement gained momentum, there was soon a flood.” He did have a desire for unity though. Previous to his time there was not much emphasis on nature or the here and now. I think he wanted people to see nature as something good since God created it. I say this so that it won’t seem as if nothing good came from Aquinas. To move to my second point I will explain the community to individual shift in short. In the pre-modern era there was a sense of trust that people put in the church. If ideas were in conflict, they were able to be discussed at councils. In the modern era questions are brought forth to the church that could not be answered and that they do not want to deal with. For example, Galileo’s verification of Copernicus’s view of the universe: that the earth revolves around the sun. The church held to the view that the earth was the center of the universe. In Judges 10:13 it mentions how the sun stood still and the moon stopped. Galileo’s trail was significant to the church’s relationship to science. Philosophy is now becoming even more independent than before. William Ockham played a major part in the philosophy/theology separation. He is given credit for setting the stage for modern philosophy. To him universals are the worst mistake in the history of philosophy. “Universals are no more than concepts or words and have no reality outside the mind.” Basically raising the question, since we cannot experience them, why have them? He rejected Plato and Aristotle’s concept of universals and how Christians “modified” them to fit their worldview.

            It would not be fair to stop there on the philosophy/theology separation. David Hume came along and introduced what people call Hume’s fork, which holds that “truth must be empirically verified or based on reason. Anything not in line with these ideas must be consigned to the flames. Consequently it does not make sense to speak about God or religious truth.” Hume believed true knowledge could be found only in mathematics and experimental disciplines. Hume says, “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” Hume’s fork was the foundation for the verification principle. Not only were theologians cut out of philosophical discussions, but ethicists were to. In addition, to this Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) ushers in a new idea of community. Holding that, religious language makes sense in light of the religious community. So discussion about God is sensible within a religious circle because it is within these “communities” that meaning is determined.

            What is to be said of all this? Can philosophy and theology work together or should they be completely separate? I would argue that they can better help each other. But to do them separately or come to them with a different mind, as some say is necessary, seems impossible. Since theology is the systematic study of God and his divinity and philosophy defined by the Greeks is the love of knowledge or wisdom and Proverbs 1:7 tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, aren’t they compatible? We must admit though that since the move of a “pure” or first philosophy, the two have become very different in content. Theology deals more specifically with the Saviour, salvation, the kingdom of God and much more, while on the other hand philosophy has come to deal with abstract ideas. Likewise they are separated by their sources. The source of theology is divine revelation. Philosophy is rational and abstract. It proceeds not from faith, like theology, but seeks to base itself either on the indisputable fundamental axioms of reason, deducing from them further conclusions, or upon the facts of science or general human knowledge. Philosophy itself concludes that human thought by its nature is limited to boundaries. Without faith these boundaries cannot be crossed.