On the Relationship between Philosophy, Religion and Theology

 

                                            Prof. Horst S e i d l

(Lateran University, Rome)

 

        Today, in Christianity and also in Buddhism there are tentatives to unify religion and philosophy in a unique spirituel activity of man. In Occident a so-called "Christian philosophy" is built up which is not only inspired by Christian Revelation but proceeds from Christian faith as premis of philosophical arguments. In the background there is the sceptical motif that philosophy is not able to find solutions to the actual problems but needs Christian faith to come to positive insights. In Orient a Buddhist school at Kyoto (Nishida, Nishitani) combines Buddhist religion with Western philosophies of Fichte, James, Heidegger and others whose "pious thinking" is directed to some absolute principle, called divine by the religious men, presenting itself, at the same time, as a philosophical problem in terms of existential life experience.[1]

        Now, it is true that philosophy in Occident has originated in religious ambiance, as the Presocratic philosophers show, passing "from myth to logos".[2] However, it is also true that from this passage an autonomous philosophy has come forth with a new attitude quite different from the religious and theological. Therefore, in the following pages I intend to expose philosophy, religion and theology in their diversity in order to explain, then, their reciprocal relation.

1) Short characeterisation of Philosophy, Religion and Theology

a) Philosophy

        In its specific form philosophy came up in Ancient Greece, where also, for the first time, the term φιλοσοφία has been introduced. In Orient, in the doctrine of Buddha philosophy appears as religious wisdom. In Kongzi (Confucius) wisdom is primarily moral, under political and social aspects, but also the religious one. The same holds for Taoism. In Japan (in the epoch of Meiji, with the opening to the West) Western terms have been translated with neologisms, as philosophy with 哲学 tetsugaku, which does not correspond to the Greek φιλοσοφία, "love of wisdom", but signifies rather – according to the characters – a science of divisions or analysis of concepts. The Chinese use the same characters 哲学, zhexue, for philosophy, whereas true wisdom (religious as well as secular) is expressed rather with the characters 智慧 zhihui, or 明智 mingzhi.

     Only in Greece philosophy has been established in the specific sense as contemplating reality on the whole and looking out to a first principle (ἀρχή) or to first causes (αἱ πρῶται αἰτίαι) of all things. Such a research, initiated by the Presocratics, is no longer religious wisdom, referring to the divine sphere and the cultus, but secular wisdom which endeavors to explain the phenomena of the natural things and of man by certain first causes, as we can see in Plato and Aristotle.

Aristotle defines his "first philosophy" (or metaphysics, in later denomination) as wisdom which is theoretical science and has as object all things in as far as they are, that is as "being qua being". Departing from this, metaphysics researches the causes by which things are specifically what they are and arrives at certain immanent causes in them, and finally at a first transcendent (supernatural) cause on which the whole nature depends, including man. The essence of things consists in their immanent causes. The first philosophy offers knowledge which is no longer practical but "theoretical", having its value in itself, without any practical utility. This capacity of man testifies that he is self-end in himself. He may not be instrumentalized for other ends. His theoretical activities (like in science, arts and religion) do not allow the question for what they are useful; they are "useful" for man's life itself, for its quality, perfection and happiness. In other words: Human life is more than practice, according to the classical tradition, against modern pragmatism. Aristotle begins his Metaphysics with the words: "All men are striving after knowing by nature". They enjoy of theoretical knowledge which enriches human life.

b) Religion

        Religion, in its original sense, concerns the relationship between man and God, as also the etymology of the Latin word "re-ligio" indicates which means: to be "bound back" to God.

Cicero mentions[3] also another etymology derives religio from re-legere, namely  re-reading old traditions newed of the cultus rites of the ancients.

At base there is the conviction that the soul has come forth from God "Father" and has her destiny, beyond the death, to return to the reign of God as to her "home-land". Therefore the cultus essentially takes care of the veneration of the Divinity (in singular or plural), of the community with God. To the cultus of God is added the cultus of the ancestors.

The Chinese word for religion, 宗教zongjiao, leads us in this direction: means ancestors.

The religious meaning of religion which regards the relationship of the soul to God includes the task of reconciliation with God since this relationship has been disturbed and offended by the sin of mankind. Hence religious cultus is engaged in the expiation of the human guilt, by sacrifice, in order to gain the benevolence and grace of God.

     The cultus has as scope not only riconciliation with the Divinity, but aspires also to a perfection in order to participate at the perfection, even at the divine holiness. "Holiness" is the perfection of God. Becoming holy means for man also to be dedicated to God or to be possessed by God.[4]

     In favour of the assumption of religion as natural disposition of the human soul we can take the historical facts of the concrete cults of the peoples, to which doctrines are added explaining the historical events of the determined people with the Divinity. Further, moral doctrines come in with divine commandments.

c) Theology

        Theology, in its specific form, has been developped in Christianity as "sacred doctrine" in order to explain the content of the Divine Revelation of the Ancient and the New Testament. It presupposes the faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Savior of mankind from the guilt of the sin against God. Christian faith has a double meaning:

1. to hold the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be true,

2. to entrust in the Divine Authority of Him and his Gospel.

     However, Christian faith is based upon the natural religiosity of the human soul. When Christ preached his Gospel He did not begin with proofs of the existence of God, but presupposed already men who prayed to God with religious experience of Him.

     The Christian theology of the Church Fathers intended to explain the Sacred Scriptures in a systematic and scientific way. Therefore the Fathers applied the Greek metaphysics which offered the method of distinguishing the supernatural sphere from the natural one. It distinguished between the principles (mysteries) of the Relvelation and truths which are derived from them and refer to their natural metaphysical base.

 

2) Comparison between Philosophy, Religion and Theology

a) Comparison between Philosophy and Religion

        Comparing philosophy or metaphysics with religion we can say that they distinguish in their objects as well as in their method and their human attitude.

       Whereas religion is dedicated directly to God as its object of departure, metaphysics has as its object not God but the things of this world, including man, that is: "being qua being". Departing from this, it arives only at the end, by means of demonstrations, at a first transcendent cause of all things which is, then, identified with the God venerated in religious cult. One can say that where metaphysics ends religion has always already begun.

        With regard to modern criticism against the "God of the philosophers", pronounced especially by Pascal, Kierkegaard, Weischedl, Barth and Küng, I would like to make the following remark. The main critical argument is expressed in the best form by Kierkegaard,[5] pointing out that he who lives his religious faith has no need in philosophical proofs of God, and he who lives without faith cannot even begin a proof, because he does not even know what to proof. However, this criticism is unjust because metaphysics does not prove the existence of God but that of a first cause which, then, is identified with God. This identification is added to the metaphysical proof and does not make part of it. Hence there is only a metaphysical cause of the philosophers and the God of the Christian believers. The scholastic theologians have assumed the metaphysical proofs, not in order to conduct people to religious faith but in order to defend the faith against the objection of being irrational.

       Also the religious method is different from the philosophical one; indeed religion is based on faith dedicated to a Divine Authority, whereas philosophy is autonomous in its own field of knowledge and has as only authority human reason.

       Finally, religion and philosophy are distinguished also by their different human attitude: the religious attitude aspires at salvation, reconciliation and community with God, whereas the philosophical attitude aspires at knowledge of the causes of reality.

     Besides these differences between religion and philosophy there are also some common features, above all the realism with which they are dedicated to the same reality which philosophy recognizes as transcendent cause and which religion adores as God. Therefore philosophical knowledge and religious experience complete each other.

        Historically seen, there have been philosophies which either substitute religion as doctrines of salvation (like ancient stoicism) or critizising religion as superstitious (like the Sophists). Also the marxist criticism on religion makes religion a question of knowledge: as if religion in ancient and medieval times was a primitive endeavor to explain the phenomena of nature, which was, then, substituted by the modern sciences of nature.[6] To this criticism, however, one can object that religion is an own disposition of man’s soul which cannot be derivated from the cognitive disposition on which sciences are based.

        For the rest, even modern sceptics like D. Hume have recognized religion as a natural disposition of man.[7] However, they considered it falsely only as a psychic phenomenon, taking away the realistic relation to the living God. The same holds with modern psychology like in W. James[8] and C.G. Jung.[9] According to them religion assumes in people often psychopathological aspects.

b) Comparison between Religion and Theology

        Religion and Christian theology have in common the faith in God. One can say that the religious faith of the soul in God is the natural basis of the sacred theology. But the latter is distinguished from natural religiosity of man by the Christian faith in the supernatural Revelation of God delivered in the Bible. Furtheron, theology is distinguished by the scientific penetration of the content of the Divine Revelation.

c) Comparison between Philosophy and Theology

        When we compare, finally, philosophy with theology, we state above all that between both there is the same difference as between philosophy and religion, because they depart from different objects and proceed with different methods: philosophy proceeds without faith, theology with faith. However, philosophy has in common with theology, as also with religion, the same realism. The first cause at which metaphysics arrives and the God of religion and of theology are the same reality. Therefore philosophy or metaphysics can serve as natural foundation of theology. To give an example: The theology of Christian Revelation teaches that God presents Himself to mankind in three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) but nontheless – seen metaphysically – God, in his substantial being is a simple unity.

 

3) Critical Observations on the tentative to unify Philosophy

with Religion and Theology

1) The tentative

        As we mentioned above in the beginning, there are today tentatives to unify theology with an existentialistic (heideggerian) philosophy in such a way that they would form two parts of a unique enterprise. Philosophy, as introductive part, would only raise problems of the kind of "ultimate questions" about the world and the human beings, asking what they are, about the sense of life or the final destiny beyond death, and the like. In front of these questions philosophy cannot give answer, if not with the aid of religious faith, illuminated by Christian Revelation, and unifying itself with theology, the conclusive part, which offers then the solution of the questions.

b) Conclusion

        This tentative, however, is open to criticism. The impossibility of metaphysics to develop itself autnomously, and the necessity to unite itself with theology, proceeding with religious faith, results from the error which overcharges metaphysics, from the beginning, with "ultimate questions" which, however, in my view, are not metaphysical ones but religious ones or those of "Weltanschauungen" (visions of the world) which can be resolved only with the aid of religious faith. On the contrary, traditional metaphysics has had its own questions about the causes of being of all things and about their essence, and has developped solutions without the aid of faith. In this way metaphysics presents itself as a discipline conclusive in itself. Traditional theology, like the thomistic one, raises its own questions, inspired by the wholy Revelation, without being contaminated by partly secularised "Weltanschauungen" or by an existentialistic philosophy. Rather it finds by itself the answer to the questions on the base of Christian faith.

     The tentative of unifying both, metaphysics and theology, takes away their characteristic of sciences. Indeed, metaphysics is a science in the field of natural knowledge, and theology is a science in the field of supernatural knowledge. They proceed, as every science, in their different fields from theirown questions and arrive to their own solutions.

 

 



[1] This topic is developped more in detail by my treatise: Über das Verhältnis von Philosophie und Religion, Hildesheim 2003 (Olms Verlag).

[2] This expression is the title of the well-known book of Wilhelm Nestle: Vom Mythos zum Logos, Stuttgart 21942.

[3] Cicero, De natura deorum, II 4.

[4] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol. II-II-, q. 81 (De religione), explains religion as natural disposition in all human beings, following a rich tradition which runs back to Plato’s Euthyphro. He defines religion as habitus moralis with the end of cultus Dei.

[5] See Kierkegaard, Philosophische Brosamen, Köln 21968; Cap. 3: Eine metaphysische Grille.

[6] See for instance: K. Marx – Fr. Engels, Über Religion, Berlin 1976 (Dietz Verlag).

[7] David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, from 1779.

[8] William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, 1902.

[9] Besides the remarks in his Grundwerk, Carl Gustav Jung explains his psychological view on religion in: Antwort an Hiob, Zürich 1952.