Relation Between Philosophy and Theology

On Saturday, March 11^th, 2006, a conference will be held at the University of Guelph concerning philosophy and theology. It is an attempt to foster a dialogue between the two disciplines. I hope to attend this conference. I hope to learn a lot from it. And I hope to reconnect with my M.A. supervisor whom I have not seen or talked to in about two years. But that is secondary (or tertiary).

Right now, however, I am doing some reading and thinking on the subject myself, in preparation for the conference, or for my own edification and enjoyment if I find myself unable to attend. Here are some of the books which I have opened on this topic:

Alister McGrath Christian Theology: An Introduction.

He has a chapter entitled “Philosophy and Theology: Introducing a Dialogue.” This chapter runs through some of the philosophical systems which have influenced theology. What he does not do, however, is to explain the differences or similarities between the disciplines, and show how thinkers in the past on both sides of the discussion have approached the topic. If you want a brief introduction into difference philosophical schools and how they have influenced theology, this may be a good place to start. He also adds a bibliography at the end of each section in this book for further reading.

Abraham Kuyper Lectures on Calvinism.

While I have not finished reading the section on “Calvinism and Science,” I have read enough to come to the preliminary conclusion (hypothesis, maybe?) that Kuyper is showing how Calvin and Calvinism has fostered study in the sciences (as general sciences—the university disciplines, not only ‘formal’ scientific study) through the belief in predestination. He explains the connection by saying that God has decreed from before time what will happen (who will be saved, depending on if you take Kuyper’s view of predestination to be wide or narrow), then creation is an ordered thing. And through this order, and how God has worked and does work in creation, we can, through study, come to know more about both creation and the Creator.

Principles of Sacred Theology.

In a section in this work, Kuyper argues that Theology does not necessarily need to maintain that it is a science (like philosophy, literature, etc.)—it can stand on its own. It has, as its area(s) of study the revealed, ectypal knowledge of God. This, to Kuyper, corresponds to the first of the five areas which ‘science’ studies: God. The other 4 areas are: man’s spiritual existence, his material existence, his sociological existence, and nature around him. Thus theology is a science in its own right, but does not need to constantly ‘publicize’ this. Kuyper argues that even if it were not a science, per se, it would still be informative and important to the knowledge—like music. He then spends much time discussing Theology itself (the book is dedicated to understanding the science of Theology, and is close to 700 pages long), but I think, in terms of a relation between philosophy and theology, this may be as good as we’ll get, without much more study into this work.

George I. Mavrodes “Jerusalem and Athens Revisited” in Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God. Edited by A. Plantinga and N. Wolterstorff.

In this essay, Mavrodes discusses the basic problem beneath the discussions of the Reformed Epistemologists: Is belief in God rational? The title of this essay has its literary foundations in Tertullian’s statement: “what do Jerusalem and Athens have to do with each other?” It seems that Mavrodes here argues (along with the other Reformed Epistemologists) that belief in God is rational. This, one could argue I suppose, is the basis for Theology. Theology starts here, with belief in God ( or more basically with God). But in order for theology to be relevant to more than just theologians and believers, it must enter into the realm of philosophy, and show its rationality. It does not, he argues, have to prove its rationality—belief in God is simply rational, and reasons do not make it rational, but simply show that it is rational. Belief is not based on these reasons, but supported, or expressed through them. Thus theology will enter into the realm of philosophy in order to show its rationality (which is founded on belief in God)—that belief in God is at least as good a starting point for the disciplines as the more humanistic foundation of reason.

If I had my copy of Richard Mouw’s He Shines in All That’s Fair: Culture and Common Grace, I would add some of that in here as well, as a more fundamental approach to the question. He argues that common grace (God bestows some grace on unbelievers as well as believers) shows that we can learn from and use elements of secular or unbelieving culture, since there may be some truth in it, by the grace of God. But, alas, I lent my copy out a few weeks ago.

These are the works that I have glanced at this morning. Some, as you can probably tell, were more helpful, and some were not so much. But I think I have noticed an underlying trend, or at least my readings have brought my own thinking up into the conscious part of my mind, rather than slumbering in the deeper recesses of my sub-consciousness.

It seems to me that philosophy and theology are two different disciplines which talk about some of the same things. In my academic background, I have studied both philosophy and theology, and still find use for both. Theology, or at least the theology that I am studying, has a strong insistence on being scripturally based. It is the fine tradition that Calvin excelled at (although he was by far not the first to do this, but he is the basis for my faith-tradition) of having theology fundamentally based on exegesis. If you look at the editions of his Institutes, written in 1536, 1539, and 1559, they got larger and more systematic as he read and wrote commentaries on many of the biblical books, and preached many sermons. Theology is based on a knowledge and understanding of God’s Word.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is not so grounded. Philosophy, in the fine secular tradition (and even in many of the Christian philosophies) is grounded on Reason. While in the secular tradition, reason has been held up as the ‘infallible faculty,’ by which all things can be known, the Christian tradition has, for the most part, seen reason as one of the areas in which the Fall into sin has irreparably damaged. This element has come out most recently in the Reformed Epistemological camp, going back to Kuyper, and further back to Calvin.

So, my tentative conclusion is that theology and philosophy are two different foundations to knowledge, a knowledge which often overlaps, and rightfully so, since the two disciplines are fundamentally concerned with the same things—nature, reality, and the larger questions of life, the universe, and everything. The image that comes into my head is that of two trees, growing side by side so that their branches intertwine and tangle. They are separate trees, but if you were to look only at the branches, you wouldn’t be able to separate them—you wouldn’t even be able to tell that they are two trees. It is only when you look at the trunks that you can see that they are two separate trees, and from the trunks you can work your way into separating the two.

I used to think that theology and philosophy were much the same, but with a different focus. In their most basic sense, theology dealt with God, and philosophy dealt with reality. But I find that this does not work. There are too many similarities, and too many profound, fundamental differences. Each has a different root: theology in scripture (if done properly), and philosophy in reason (however understood). But even this paradigm is not entirely satisfactory. For there are philosophers who, in some way, begin with scripture. And there are theologians who rely on reason. Maybe the trunks of the trees should be wrapped around each other as well, thus confusing the image a little more.

The question that I still have is this:

Can a person be either a theologian or a philosopher, or is it possible to be both?