Where the theologian has revelation, the philosopher has doubt.
If you’re interested in short but flat brilliant essays on theology and philosophy, faith and belief, revelation and the possible hope that an examined life will create its own meaning, then for [whichever] gods’ sakes, check out this LJ entry by “creases”. Yay intelligence!
3 comments
Faith is a moral choice, not a rational system. Any rational system is based on necessity, but faith is a free choice we make that determines our relationship to God eternally. Examining faith for any justification means you are not examining faith at all.
Rational systems are all useless because God is a person. This person is not subject to any necessity, and humans who look to enter into a relationship with this person are not subject to any necessity either. The questions that philosophy and theology ask are different, and the methodology is different. Both seek the truth, though, and so they do overlap in that respect. There can not be one “truth” for philsophy, and another for theology.
I always wanted to make an outline of the spiritual life, like a step by step manual of what to do to get from fallen human to deified human. I wanted to use the emotional development of people as a model, taken from developmental psychology. Children have specific emotional needs, which are different from young adults, which are different again from couples and parents, and which are different again from the elderly. Such an outline has never been written out by all the generations of monks from the 4th century. I later found out why, namely because there are no necessities guiding the spiritual life, only moral choice (faith). Our spiritual systems are just descriptions of details, really, no general outline.
Oo, lots of things to disagree with here. For one thing, anybody who studies reason will tell you instantly that it’s far from necessary. Like theology in the referenced essay, the conclusions it draws are necessarily true within its own framework, but it’s hardly *necessary to be rational*. Rather, thinking critically is choosing to withhold judgment until enough evidence is gathered to justify it — and in many ways to give up the hope of ever being able to judge. This is not something that comes instinctively to most people, and even for those of us that choose it, it’s a serious effort to sustain.
I wonder why the (proposed, not proven) personhood of God makes rational systems useless. I am a person, and reason can say a lot about what I am and why I do what I do. Furthermore, reason can prove that I exist (in fact that’s one of the very few things rational thought can prove conclusively; see Descartes). If God exists and is, as you say, a person — and especially if the whole world around which rational thought is built is intimately connected with what God is — then why should we assume that rational thinking would have nothing to say about God (assuming he could be found so there was somewhere to apply it)?
Yep, I wasn’t clear at all. I blame sleep deprivation. lets see if I can try this again.
The article is on the different ways theology and philosophy think. Theology uses faith to justify its beliefs, while philosophers disagree with that and look for reasons for credence.
I disagree with faith by itself justifying anything. In Eastern Christian theology, an encounter with God has a mutual exchange: God gives knowledge (gnosis) of himself, while the individual gives faith (pistis). This contemplative faith grabs the individual and changes him/her, because any contemplation of God means the individual seeing God is unified with God. So, gnosis and pistis are the same thing in an organic way, not that faith is a context for knowledge for the theologian, as the article suggests.
Evgarius the Solitary had a formula: he who has purity of prayer is a true theologian, and a true theologian has purity of prayer. So, a theologian knows (gnosis) through the silence (isikhia; a pure prayer is silent) of his prayer. Prayer is the unfolding of his faith into action (praxis). It is the unity of all this (grace and freewill) which separates Eastern theology from Western theology and Western religious thought. Eastern theology actually sounds very close to Deep Knowing, because knowledge is this case is not conveyed by words, proves what is known, and is impossible to grasp on an intellectual level. Philosophy used empirical experience and reasoning as knowledge (episteme). Philosophy is intellectual, while theology is, um, gnosis. I can’t think of how to explain the difference.
Since grace and freewill work together (synergia), God too has to have a will, which means he is a person. Any attempt of find episteme in this relationship will end up back into the silence of prayer. That is what I tried to say when I said reason does not apply to God.
Man, I hope that makes sense when I wake up tomorrow.