Philosophy Vs. Theology

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Having a BA in Theology and a BA in Philosophy and studying for my PhD in philosophy in a state university I have slowly become more aware of the differences between the two, yet I fear the two disciplines are frequently molded into one. I believe that to do this is to grossly misunderstand the nature of philosophy as an apologetic tool as opposed to the pursuit of truth. Granted it can be used in apologetics, but that is not its purpose. What do you think is the difference between the two? For example, is Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles a work of philosophy of theology, what about the Summa Theologica (that should be an easy one)...or are parts philosophy and parts theology? Many people think Aristotle's Metaphysics is quasi-theology, but to think that is completely absurd. Any thoughts?

[kafka]

philosophy is the handmaiden of theology. The truths of faith do not contradict reason though they at the same time transcend them. Just as creation is like God yet God infinitely transcends creation.

so philosophy can be used as a tool to glean new and deeper insights into the truths of faith, yet it cannot ever fully penetrate the truths of the faith nor fully explain them.

Reason/philosophy is also almost indispensible in explaining the faith. We do not speak to eachother in a string of infallible dogmatic statments when we discuss and teach the faith, and the search for truth is wideranging, sometimes theology which is in one sense a scientific approach to the faith melds with philosophy and there is nothing wrong with this just as long as people realize that faith is above reason. What happens with some misled stray theologians is that they exalt human science and enterprise above faith, thus becoming blinded leading other people astray. It is happening all over today.

[kafka]

I think I misread your question, oh well my answer was still a bit relevent I think. I dont have a whole lot of time on the net so sometimes I read a bit quickly since posting here is luxury time

[Apotheoun]

Eastern theologians tend to hold Greek philosophy (i.e., speaking in particular about metaphysics) in low regard: at least when it comes to philosophical speculation in connection with matters that are properly theological (see the sections of the [url="http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/synodikon"]Synodikon of Orthodoxy[/url] anathematizing John Italus).

[LivingStone]

Yeah, Thomas Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles would be his philosophical work. St. Tommy talks about the relationship between human reason and the truth of faith in his 8th Chapter of the Summa Contra Gentiles. Wonder if that helps at all.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='08 December 2009 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1260317792' post='2016398']
Eastern theologians tend to hold Greek philosophy (i.e., speaking in particular about metaphysics) in low regard: at least when it comes to philosophical speculation in connection with matters that are properly theological (see the sections of the [url="http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/synodikon"]Synodikon of Orthodoxy[/url] anathematizing John Italus).
[/quote]

I think philosophy can help us to explain theological truths, but it is dangerous to use philosophical concepts to understand God.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

I agree the truths of philosophy cannot contradict with truths of theology, that is because truth is one. Granted philosophy is the handmaid of theology, but that does not mean philosophy IS theology. My question is more so pertaining to the roles of philosophy and theology in attaining truth. For some truth cannot be attained by theology. For example, calculus cannot be attained by theology. So, are the truths of philosophy attainable by theology? I don't think all of them are.

My question was more what MAKES something a work of philosophy, versus theology.

"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"

[Apotheoun]

St. Gregory of Nyssa, in his [i]Seventh Homily on Ecclesiastes[/i], says that the created human mind - through its natural powers - cannot transcend its own created existence. In other words, philosophical reasoning concerns only the created world, for it cannot transcend the gap between the created (diastemic and kinetic) and the uncreated, and a man geniuses himself if he thinks that he has transcended his creaturely status through philosophical speculation and come into direct contact with God.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Many people would say it is a philosophical pursuit to infer the existence of God (not necessarily a Trinity), form the created world. It seems reason can attain to truths of a first efficient cause. Reason ([b]completely unaided by faith or revelation[/b]) can attain the truth of the existence of God, i.e., truth beyond created existence.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='09 December 2009 - 01:07 PM' timestamp='1260389236' post='2016699']
Many people would say it is a philosophical pursuit to infer the existence of God (not necessarily a Trinity), form the created world. It seems reason can attain to truths of a first efficient cause. Reason ([b]completely unaided by faith or revelation[/b]) can attain the truth of the existence of God, i.e., truth beyond created existence.
[/quote]
The Western Church likes to talk about "natural theology," but that concept does not exist in the East. The Eastern Fathers held that theology - properly speaking - concerns the inner life of God, which is accessible only through revelation; while economy concerns God's workings in the world, and the divine economy is known both through revelation and - albeit in a very limited way - through the activities of man's created intellect.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

So divine economy can by philosophical in nature?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='09 December 2009 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1260389932' post='2016708']
So divine economy can by philosophical in nature?
[/quote]
Yes, the divine economy concerns both creation and the recreation.

Philosophy really concerns knowledge of the created order, which means that it is limited by its very nature. The most that one can know (intellectually) about God through created wisdom is that He exists, but that should never be confused with knowing (experientially) God. Only the latter is salvific.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

True, knowledge does not save...

But (I realize you are Eastern, so citing Aquinas might not be too moving) can we attain apophatic (spelling?) knowledge of God's essence via philosophy; as in the Summa Contra, this is had by pure reason, and it is beyond the fact tat God exists, it is knowledge of what He is like by knowing what he isn't like? Is that philosophical in nature? If so it seems to be beyond the fact that God exists.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='09 December 2009 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1260393266' post='2016763']
True, knowledge does not save...

But (I realize you are Eastern, so citing Aquinas might not be too moving) can we attain apophatic (spelling?) knowledge of God's essence via philosophy; as in the Summa Contra, this is had by pure reason, and it is beyond the fact tat God exists, it is knowledge of what He is like by knowing what he isn't like? Is that philosophical in nature? If so it seems to be beyond the fact that God exists.
[/quote]
The Eastern Fathers taught that the divine essence is utterly transcendent and unknowable, both in this life and in the eschaton, and that is why - even when using apophasis - there can be no [i]analogia entis[/i], but only an [i]analogia energeia[/i]. This has been discussed before, click the link below to peruse the older thread:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81541"]God as Unknowable[/url]

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Thanks... I know very little about the Byzantine tradition (I took a course on it when I was in undergrad 2 years ago with a Byzantine Catholic deacon), so it is always good to hear from the East...so thank you.

As an Eastern (are you Catholic? or Orthodox?, just out of curiosity), can you say of God that he is not composite or that He is not finite? It seems if they are true statements, then we are able to know somewhat what God is like.

However, I am a fan of aseity so I think our predication of different properties of God is somewhat off the mark...God does not have different attributes, he is simple, His Truth is his Justice which is his mercy which is his prudence, etc. To us these are different properties...in God they are one. But this is off mark slightly from the original question...

Thank you Apotheoun, now I know where the East stands on the roles of Philosophy and Theology (this was informative)... any takers from the West? (which is a bit trickier I believe).

[Slappo]

I think Pope Benedict XVI's Reggensburg Address would be a very interesting and insightful read for you on the western views, and those of our pope, on the relationship of Athens and Jerusalem.

http://www.zenit.org/article-16955?l=english

As it is very very dense, I recommend printing and highlighting. One of my philosophy classes at Franciscan University spent two or more weeks on this address alone.

Another insightful read on philosophy and theology might be Benedict's encyclical Spe Salvi article 6.Here is a taste of it.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html

[quote]Philosophy at that time was not generally seen as a difficult academic discipline, as it is today. Rather, the philosopher was someone who knew how to teach the essential art: the art of being authentically human—the art of living and dying. To be sure, it had long since been realized that many of the people who went around pretending to be philosophers, teachers of life, were just charlatans who made money through their words, while having nothing to say about real life. All the more, then, the true philosopher who really did know how to point out the path of life was highly sought after.[/quote]



Really the relationship between theology and philosophy depends on what you truly understand philosophy to be. If you understand it to be what it has become today, then it is quite a different relationship then the understanding of the philosophy of the early Greeks.

[Slappo]

I know that my reply did not directly address your specific question as to how to tell the difference between philosophy and theology but I believe in seeing the relationship between philosophy and theology you can more clearly see how they both intertwine and are separate.

My views on the matter are quite different, I am sure, of those of Apotheun. I took a Christian Philosophy class, as a matter of fact, the only Christian Philosophy class that has been taught at Franciscan University (the brother who was teaching it taught it for one semester only, and the class was based on his doctoral dissertation and was quite intriguing)

If I get the chance I will post more later, but my internet use is very limited at the moment.

[kafka]

theology would be a reasoned or philosophical approach to the truths of Divine Revelation.

philosophy a reasoned approach to essential truths.

Divine Revelation is the Deeds and Words wrought by God in salvation history. So this includes even creation (without creation there would be no salvation) so sometimes they overlap. A philosopher could come to the conclusion that God created the earth and humanity but without Divine Revelation he may never know why. Or he may come to some correct conclusions that he would find in Divine Revelation since he might be led by God in a state of grace.

It seems pretty simple to me. I guess a lot of modern philosophers mix the two, especially the Germans.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Slappo...thanks for the links... I have read the Reggensberg address several times and Spe Salvi. Both are fabulous! I am not asking mainly for my sake, but for the sake of discussion. I have my on horse in the race as to what I think the distinction is. I have thought a great deal about this (I am working on my PhD in contemporary analytic philosophy at a state school), and since I am the only Catholic in the dept. this and similar questions arise often. I was mainly wanting to draw out a discussion in regards to specifics.

However, in response to your comment about the state of philosophy today in comparison to ancient philosophy...I do not think it is different in its aim, but only in its method...philosophy being the pursuit of truth via reason has its hand in MANY if not all the empirical sciences (especially physics). The pre-socratics were concerned about the nature of 'physics' (the nature of nature/change), and so we get philosophers who theorize about biology and astronomy and geology, etc. So, it was all considered philosophy (in some way). I think modern and contemporary philosophy is still concerned about these things (change, being, etc.).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='09 December 2009 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1260395347' post='2016823']
As an Eastern (are you Catholic? or Orthodox?, just out of curiosity), can you say of God that he is not composite or that He is not finite? It seems if they are true statements, then we are able to know somewhat what God is like. [/quote]
Eastern Christians, both Catholic - which I happen to be - and Orthodox, like to use paradoxical phrases when speaking about God (e.g., God is indivisibly divided in His many energies, etc.). That said, I would never call God finite, nor would I say that He is composite, but I also would not say that His essence is to be infinite, nor that His essence is to be non-composite, because He infinitely transcends both of these concepts. In fact, God essentially transcends anything that we can conceive in our mind, which is why I reject the idea that there is analogy of being between God, who verily is, and creation, which comes from nothingness into being at His Word.

It is in coming into contact (experientially through worship) with God's energies that allows a man to formulate concepts (i.e., what the Cappadocians called "epinoetic conceptions") about God, but - even when this kind of concept formation occurs - the concepts themselves are distanciated from the energies that man experienced and which caused him to formulate the concepts in the first place. Moreover, there is a further distanciation when a man takes the concept that he has formulated about God's activity and puts it into words. To put it another way, nothing that we say about God is said about His essence, for He is [i]adiastemic[/i], while human beings are [i]diastemic[/i], and the gap between uncreated and created essence can only be bridged unidirectionally by God who bestows His energies upon man and the whole of creation. Here is what St. Gregory of Nyssa said about this issue:

"However, the person attempting to comprehend God who cannot be circumscribed by limitations, does not admit that God transcends the universe. He sets his own reason up in opposition, considering it to be such and such a thing which can contain any type of thought. He does not know that God in whom we believe transcends our knowledge and that every consideration befitting him serves to guard his true existence. Why is this so? Because every created being looks to what is connatural, and no being can remain in existence apart from itself. Fire cannot exist in water; neither can water be present in fire, dry land in the depth, water in dry land, earth in the sky nor the sky in the earth. Everything is limited by its own nature as long as it exists and stays within its own bounds. If anything created goes outside itself, it will lose its own essence just like the senses which cannot transgress their natural functions. The eye does not function like the ear nor does our sense of touch speak; hearing does not taste, but each sense is limited by the power natural to it. Thus all creation cannot transgress its natural limitations by a comprehensive insight; it always remains within its own bounds and whatever it may view, it sees itself. Should creation think it beholds anything which transcends it, this cannot be because it lacks the capacity to look beyond its own nature. The contemplation of beings is restricted by a certain notion of [i]temporal interval[/i] [[i]diastema[/i]] which cannot be transgressed. Indeed, for every conception which the mind gives birth an interval of time is considered along with the substance of that which had thought it; an interval of time is nothing other than creation. The good which we strongly encourage to seek, guard, to unite ourselves and cling to transcends creation and thought. Our mind functions by using intervals within time, so how can it grasp [God's] nature which is not subject to temporal extension? Through the medium of time the inquisitive mind always leaves behind any thought older than what it just discovered. The mind also busily searches through all kinds of knowledge yet never discovers the means to grasp eternity in order to transcend both itself and what we earlier considered, namely, the eternal existence of beings. This effort resembles a person standing on a precipice (Let a smooth, precipitous rock which abruptly falls off to a limitless distance suggest this transcendence whose prominence reaches on high while also falls to the gaping deep below). A person's foot can touch that ridge falling off to the depths below and find neither step nor support for his hand. To me, this example pertains to the soul's passage through intervals of time in its search for [God's] nature which exists before eternity and is not subject to time. His nature cannot be grasped because it lacks space, time, measure and anything else we can apprehend; instead, our mind is overcome with dizziness and stumbles all over the place because it cannot lay hold of transcendent reality. Being powerless, it returns to its connatural state. Our minds love to know only about God's transcendence of which they are persuaded because his nature differs from anything we know."

Ultimately, whenever a man talks about the divine essence, he is really talking about creation, because it is impossible for a man to transcend the diastemic gap (the interval of time, space, and movement) that essentially separates the creature from the Creator.

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='09 December 2009 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1260395347' post='2016823']
However, I am a fan of aseity so I think our predication of different properties of God is somewhat off the mark...God does not have different attributes, he is simple, His Truth is his Justice which is his mercy which is his prudence, etc. To us these are different properties...in God they are one. But this is off mark slightly from the original question... [/quote]
Easterners do not accept the concept of simplicity advocated by the Scholastics. Instead, Eastern theologians, following the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the East, make a real distinction (a [i]pragmatika diakrisis[/i]) - without a separation (a [i]pragmatike diaresis[/i]) - between the divine essence, which is utterly incomprehensible, and the divine energies, which come down to us giving us a real personal experience of God (See St. Basil, [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202234.htm"]Letter 234[/url]).

Edited December 9, 2009 by Apotheoun