Now two problems arise in connection with the relationship of Christianty to
philosophy and they need to be treated here.
The first is:
Why is there a confict between Christianity and philosophy?
The second problem is:
Is a Christian philosophy possible?
"A plague on Aristotle, who taught them dialectic, the art which destroys as much as it builds, which changes its opinions like a coat, forces its conjectures, is stubborn in argument, works hard at being contentious and is a burden even to itself. For it reconsiders every point to make sure it never finishes a discussion... What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy, the Christian with the heretic? Our principles come from the Porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord is to be sought in simplicity of heart. I have no use for a Stoic or a Platonic or a dialectic Christianity. After Jesus Christ we have no need of a speculation, after the Gospel no need of research. When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else; for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we have to believe." [2]The denunciation of philosophy has been expressed by many others within Christendom - Bernard of Clairvaux, Peter Damiani, Luther, Pascal and Kierkegaard. On the other hand, the hostility and distrust of Christianity by the philosophers has been just as vigorous (Compare Bertrand Russell and Nietzsche).
What is the cause of this hostility and distrust by the representatives of each for the other? Apart from personal likes and dislikes (who knows whether these also arise from the same cause) the cause and explanation of this conflict seems to be twofold. The conflict seems to arise from a misunderstanding and confusion on the part of the representatives of Christianity, on the one hand, and on the part of the representatives of philosophy on the other.
The misunderstanding and confusion on the part of the representatives of Christianity seems to arise from their failure to distinguish between philosophy, on the one hand, as an intellectual activity, the search for wisdom, and, on the other, philosophy as an intellectual construct resulting from the intellectual activity of philosophy, the wisdom sought. The Apostle Paul does not seem to make this mistake even though he nowhere makes this distinction. He teaches that there is a Christian wisdom, a Christian philosophy, although he does oppose all non-Christian philosophies.
"Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom,The Apostle Paul does not seem to oppose philosophy as an intellectual activity but he does oppose non-Christian intellectual constructs or philosophies. He and the other representatives of Christianity rightly should have rejected and opposed the intellectual constructs of philosophy when these presupposed and embodied the implications of an alien ultimate commitment. This is the profound truth that each of these representatives of Christianity saw. But most of them went too far by failing to distinguish philosophy as an intellectual construct from philosophy as an intellectual activity. Philosophy as an intellectual activity they could not reject without giving up thinking altogether. In fact, their undiscriminating rejection of philosophy as an intellectual activity betrays them into bad philosophy as they attempted to draw out the implications of their ultimate commitment to Jesus Christ. [3] For they failed to recognize that to think at all concerning their commitment, its object, and its relation to the rest of reality launches them, whether they realize it or not, into philosophy as an intellectual activity. And as a result of this failure to acknowledge this, they were led quite often into some very embarrassing statements - statements which belong to the very philosopies they wanted to reject. [4]
although it is not a wisdom of this age
or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away.
But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God,
which God decreed before the ages for our glorification.
None of the rulers of this age understood this;
for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those
who love him," God has revealed to us through the Spirit.
For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
For what person knows a man's thoughts
except the spirit of the man which is in him?
So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Now we have received not the spirit of the world,
but the Spirit which is from God,
that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.
And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom
but taught by the Spirit,
interpreting spiritual truths in spiritual language."
[This last phrase is the marginal reading.] (I Cor. 2:6-13)"For I want you to know how greatly I strive for you,
and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not seen my face,
that their hearts may encouraged as they are knit together in love,
to have all the riches of assured understanding
and the knowledge of God's mystery, of Christ,
in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
(Colossians 2:1-3)
On the other side of the picture, the misunderstanding and confusion of the representatives of philosophy also quite often arose from their failure to distinguish between philosophy as an intellectual activity and philosophy as an intellectual construct. But in addition and far more important, they failed to recognized that all philosophy whether intellectual activity or intellectual construct has a religious foundation. This led them quite often to reject Christianity because they thought that philosophy transcended all religion. Thus they look on reason as far superior to faith. In fact, quite often philosophy was turned into a religion of reason where reason itself was the object of commitment and devotion. [5] In this light, the real nature of the conflict between Christianity and philosophy becomes clear: it is a conflict between opposing religions with mutually exclusive gods. The representatives of philosophy correctly recognized the importance and inevitability of philosophy as an intellectual activity, that is, reason, but they quite often exalted reason to the place of a god and thus turned philosophy into a religion of reason. [6] Moreover, the philosophies (intellectual constructs) put forth by the representatives of philosophy were quite often consciously or unconsciously grounded in the ultimate commitment to reason as divine or god. From the side of Christianity this made it all the more difficult to distinguish between philosophy as an intellectual activity and philosophy as an intellectual construct resulting from the activity of philosophy. For not only did the philosophies as intellectual constructs presuppose and embody the implications of an ultimate commitment to alien gods but the intellectual activity, reason, itself was being exalted into a god. Thus for this reason many of the representatives of Christianity have rejected and opposed philosophy. But in spite of this increased difficulty they should not have so indiscriminately rejected philosophy totally; they should have recognized the importance and inevitability of philosophy as an intellectual activity.
In light of this analysis of the conflict between Christianity and philosophy, there would appear that there should not be a conflict when each and the relation between them are properly understood.
The objection from the side of philosophy is concerned with the meaning of the concept of a Christian philosophy. The objection runs something like this: the concept of a Christian philosophy is meaningless because it is first of all contradictory and second impossible. It is contradictory because the two things it puts together are essentially different. Philosophy belongs to the order of reason and Christianity belongs to the order of faith, and between them there is no connection or collaboration. Futhermore, it is said, the concept is impossible because there is only one kind of reason. Is there a Christian mathematics, a Christian logic or a Christian physics? There is only one reason.
"All who wish to think at all must think according to the rules of this one reason, which is exactly the same for all; if a man does not think in this way, he is not 'thinking' at all; he is simply indulging in fantasy. Individual differences occur only where man strays from the rules of thought, and this means wrong thinking. True thinking does not admit any expression of individuality, of time, or of personal experience." [7]
From the earlier discussion it is obvious that this objection is first of all based on a misunderstanding of the relation of philosophy to religion and to Christianity in particular. Philosophy as an intellectual activity has a religious foundation. Thus philosophy is not totally unrelated to religion. As has been pointed out in an earlier section there are important differences between philosophy and Christianity, but these differences do not mean that they are totally unrelated. Furthermore and more basic, this objection is based on a misconception of the nature of reason. It was also pointed out earlier that all intellectual activity, thinking, reasoning, presupposes a ultimate commitment. Reason is not totally independent of the prior orientation of the will. Psychology has clearly shown us that in certain important areas of human experience ("rationalizations") man knows only as much as he wants to know and thinks just what he wants to think. Reason is in fact the instrument of his will. [8] Faith and reason are not independent nor unrelated to each other.
Of course, man's reason can operate relatively independently (not absolutely) of his ultimate commitment in regard to certain areas of reality. But those are the areas that are not closely related to the object of his ultimate commitment. The closer that a particular area is to his ultimate commitment and to the object of that commitment the more is his intellectual activity affected by that commitment. [9] In this sense there is no Christian mathematics, nor a Christian logic, etc. Because of their formal character or because the value indifference of the subject matter these areas are relatively far removed from the ultimate commitment or the object of that commitment. [10] But for a similar reason there is a Christian philosophy, a Christian psychology, etc.; these areas are relatively close to the Christian ultimate commitment and the object of that commitment. A Christian philosophy is not only possible but it is necessary if a Christian is to think at all.
One final point must be made in answer to this objection. Since the view of reason implicit in this objection fails to recognize that reason is an instrument of man's will, it exalts reason as superior to the will and as its ultimate criterion of decision and its guide. This view of reason is often that of those philosophers who would exalt reason to the place of the true God. Their objection to a Christian philosophy therefore basically stems from their rejection of the Christian ultimate commitment in favor of an ultimate commitment to reason as divine or God.
The objection to a Christian philosophy from the side of Christianity is concerned with the value of the concept. This objection may be stated something like this: the concept of a Christian philosophy is of little value because it is first of all harmful and second it is unnecessary to Christianity.
It is said that the synthesis of Christianity and philosophy in a Christian philosophy is harmful to Christianity because it tends to destroy the faith, producing dead orthodoxy and unprofitable controversy.
It is granted that quite often philosophy does have a harmful effect on the Christian faith. Historically the distinctive elements of the Christian faith have been compromised and obscured by the synthesis with philosophy. [11] But this harmful effect did not come from philosophy as an intellectual activity. As we have pointed out earlier, philosophy as an intellectual activity cannot be avoided. The harmful effects of philosophy come from the attempted synthesis of Christianity with those philosophies (intellectual constructs) which presuppose and embody the implications of an alien ultimate commitment. Such attempted syntheses should be avoided. But strange as it may seem this is the error that those who would completely eschew philosophy so often fall into. Not willing to think philosophically they indiscriminately adopt parts or all of non-Christian philosophies in their explanations of their Christian faith. The answer to these harmful effects of non-Christian philosophies is not the rejection of philosophy as an intellectual activity but rather the development of a genuine Christian philosophy by Christians consciously engaged in philosophy to develop and express it.
The other argument against the value of a Christian philosophy is that it is unnecessary to the Christian faith. All one needs to do to be a Christian is to believe. What need is there for a Christian philosophy? It is granted that one need not be a philosopher to become a Christian. But as was pointed out earlier even the act of ultimate commitment (faith) involves the intellect because it is an act of the total man. The intelligence is active before, after and during the act of ultimate commitment. And in addition, philosophy as an intellectual activity cannot be avoided without giving up thinking altogether (which is impossible) or without falling into bad philosophy. While one need not engage in philosophy in order to become a Christian, one will become involved in philosophy if he thinks at all.
Now it is also sometimes argued that the Bible and Christian theology make a Christian philosophy unnecessary. This is an odd argument, for both of these require of necessity a Christian philosophy. The Bible is not a book of philosophy, neither does it present a philosophy. But the intellectual activity of interpretation of the world view of the Scriptures involves the formulation of a philosophy. [12] Whether this philosophy is true to the Biblical world view will depend to a great extent upon whether the interpreter is aware of the philosophic character and implications of his interpretative activity. Because of the failure to be aware of this side of the interpretative activity some Biblical interpreters have been led into some embarrassing situations and have been betrayed into positions that they were trying to avoid. [13]
Christian theology also requires a Christian philosophy because of the close relation between the intellectual activities of theology and philosophy. Theology is that human intellectual activity that seeks to acquire a body of general and systematic knowledge about the nature of ultimate reality and its relation to the rest of reality. Thus theology is an intellectual activity like philosophy. And since theology is concerned with the nature of ultimate reality, it also presupposes an ultimate commitment like philosophy. But theology differs from philosophy in that it is primarily concerned with ultimate reality and only secondarily with those aspects of reality characteristic of it as a whole. Theology is interested in these philosophical aspects of the whole of reality because the nature of ultimate reality and its relation to the rest of reality involves these aspects. Thus it is that theology as an intellectual activity requires the intellectual activity of philosophy. The philosophic activity is needed to illuminate and clarify the nature of ultimate reality and its relation to the rest of reality insofar as these involve those aspects of reality characteristic of it as a whole.
It should now be clear why Christian theology requires a Christian philosophy. A Christian philosophy is presupposed by the intellectual activity of theology as a Christian engages in this intellectual activity seeking to formulate a body of general and systematic knowledge concerning the personal God of Christianity. [14] The failure to see this connection between theology and philosophy usually arises from the mistaken view that philosophy is the activity of pure reason and that theology is revealed doctrine to be accepted by pure faith. Philosophy and theology are both misunderstood; they both are intellectual activities (reason) and both presuppose a ultimate commitment (faith).
The relation between philosophy and theology is a two way street; not only does theology need philosophy but philosophy needs theology. This is particularly true in Christian theology where the historical activity of the personal God of Christianity as recorded in the Hebrew-Christian Scriptures is the primary data of Christian theology. Christian philosophy presupposes the intellectual activity of Christian theology which seeks to formulate a body of general and systematic knowledge concerning this data. This activity lies outside the scope of Christian philosophy. But Christian philosophy needs the results of this activity as it seeks to contribute to the understanding of this data.
[2] Tertullian, Against Heretics,
cited by Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1946), p. 376.
[3] "Barth, for example, as Oscar Cullmann has pointed out,
frequently (though not always) makes the wholly unbiblical
assumption that time as such is a curse, that the
unchangeable is somehow superior to the changing..."
[E. LaB. Cherbonnier, "Biblical Metaphysic and Christian Philosophy,"
Theology Today, Vol. IX, No.3 (1952), p. 365]
Barth's idea of God as "wholly other" and of the radical
discontinuity between God and man has many similarities to
Neoplatonic and mystical metaphysics which he so strongly decires.
[4] See E. LaB. Cherbonnier, op. cit., pp. 365-6.
To read this article, click
here
[5] See E. LaB. Cherbonnier, Hardness of Heart,
Chapter XII, "The Worship of Reason."
[6] Plato and Aristotle share a common rationalism. For
both reason, as creative principle, is identical with God.
As a consequence of this the rational man (who is the
essential man) is identified with the divine.
"Individuality is no significant concept, for it rests only
upon the particularity of the body. In the thought of
Aristotle only the active nous, precisely the mind which is
not involved in the soul, is immortal; and for Plato the
immutability of ideas is regarded as a proof of the
immortality of the spirit."
[Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man,
Vol. I, Human Nature
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1941), p. 7].
[7] Brunner, op. cit., p. 375. See also Etienne Gilson,
The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1940), p. 3.
[8] See E. LaB. Cherbonnier, Hardness of Heart, p. 130.
[9] "We cannot indicate the state of affairs by drawing a line of demarcation between them, but only by a proportional statement: The nearer anything lies to that center of existence where we are concerned with the whole, that is, with man's relation to God and the being of the person, the greater is the disturbance of rational knowledge by sin; the farther away anything lies from this center, the less is the disturbance felt, and the less difference is there between knowing as a believer or as an unbeliever. This disturbance reaches its maximum in theology and its minimum in the exact sciences and zero in the sphere of the formal. Hence it is meaningless to speak of 'Christian mathematics'; on the other hand, it is significant and necessary to distinguish the Christian conceptions of freedom, the good, community, and still more the Christian idea of God, from all other conceptions." Brunner, op. cit., p. 383.
[10] See the discussion on the Relation between the Sciences in the section of the next chapter titled Science and Scientific Method.
[11] We are here referring to the attempted synthesis of Christianity with Neoplatonism by Augustine, and with Aristotelianism by Aquinas. See the discussion of The Medieval Synthesis in the next section of this chapter on The History of Western Thought.
[12] In the Bible the Gospel of John comes about as close as any Biblical writing to presenting a Christian Philosophy.
[13] See footnote 3 above.
[14] For further discussion of this relation see those parts of Chapter 5 in the section Metaphysical Views on Theism and in the section Metaphysics and its Problems on The Problems of Theism.