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).