Instituto de Filosofa Edith Stein

Academia Internacional de Filosofa

!
Relationship between Theology and Philosophy for Fundamental
Theology today
!
!
Never before this time have we felt such a sharp need in philosophy that would correspond
to real universe with its infinity and depth. It was never before so required for men, while
their nave relation to the world and life is so much spoiled by pseudo-philosophy of
philosophers.
(Dietrich von Hildebrand, What is Philosophy?)
!
Introduction

!
The history of human spirits development, originated in different traditions, like
Greek, Christian, Jewish and others created various dual teachings, including in the
anthropological sphere, which, of course, bring their consequences. Origin of dualistic ideas
concerning soul and body, faith and reason are among those. Diversity of thought, versatile
and achievements in different aspects, scientific progress does not occur aside from human
spirituality, while external is the manifestation of inner, invisible sphere. Throughout
centuries thinkers noticed the importance of material and spiritual dimension of human,
lessened one and praised the other. Christian tradition is no exception and despite the fact
that spiritual and bodily are in relation, in practice they are on different sides, and sometimes
it is easier to prove difference between, for example, faith and reason, religion and science,
philosophy and theology than their unity or even interdependence. Referring to authorities of
philosophy and theology in this article I will emphasize several important aspects to support
interrelations one of those spheres philosophy and theology. Also I will stress their status
in todays secular world. I want to underline that this work is not a manifest of philosophy or
theology, because there are no serious reasons to consider philosophy purely rational or
logical and to deprive theology of rational seed. So wether these disciplines are absolutely
different and what ways do they choose to search and confirm the truth is the purpose of this
article.

!1
 In the beginning it is important to emphasize the transformation that occurred to both
disciplines throughout the history, while modern theology, for example, and differs greatly
from theology of first centuries. The difference is not just in accumulation of materials and
enrichment of tradition. Indisputable is the fact that day-to-day method of first century
Christian theologians and modern ones is obviously different. When the tradition of the
Church Fathers speaks with the language of living theology, declaring, according to Evagrius
Ponticus, The true theologian is the one who prays, in the modern world this discipline
confirmed itself as an academic science, not so much about the insight and living through
presence of God and His perception, but more about giving definitions, inter-religious and
inter-confessional debates, dogmatic argues (like old but still actual question of Filioque),
and interpreting the feeling of Gods presence by other (true) theologians in algorithmic
and mathematical way. Modern theology on rare occasions is based on the own experience
of God perception, but more often is focused on studying and analyzing revelations of others
or historical facts, related to religion in some way. The negative fact is that even an atheist
(according to diploma) can be titled as theologian.
The rich tradition is worth studying and dogmatic should be renewed taking into
account the calls of time, but the difference between the approaches of first century
theologians and modern ones is evident. Extending knowledge according to historical
evidence of how relations with other religions occurred, dogmatic and ecclesiological
questions are certainly activity worth human, but such sphere of knowledge would be better
include not into theology, but religious studies. Today in the Western European world
religious studies differs from theology mostly because it views the question of other religions
as well, when theology refers mostly to dogmatic of one religion. Grounded as academic
discipline, theology uses many methods and ways used by its opponents, philosophy among
those. So, referring to theological topics we should divide theology as style of life a kind
of spiritual mystical theology (having a diploma is not necessary) and modern, academic one.
In this work we take into account theology grounded in modern world.
This was said in order to describe the methods and task of theology and philosophy,
namely their relation to religion. When questions about human perception of God, oneself,
faith and everything related to religiousness and spirituality of a person are asked, aspect of
this knowledge is automatically attributed to the aspect of theology. If we accept this
statement, the role of philosophy in our life vanishes at all why do we need to create

!2
 additional sciences, if questions of cognition and spirituality lie in competence of theology?
And nevertheless manifestation of philosophy and assertion of its rightful place in life is
undisputed.
!
Relationship between Theology and Philosophy for Fundamental
Theology today
!
While history gave philosophy methods of unravelling unrevealing the truth through
the light of reason and theology always and even now appeals to a spiritual way of
perception, obviously the question is about the method used by the two disciplines. It is
worth mentioning that philosophy and theology are often taken as an example where reason
and faith are opposed. The different place of the two disciplines in the mind of society is due
to the reputation the two gathered throughout history. Particularly we should mention that
non-believing thinkers called themselves exactly philosophers, though it does not mean they
really were such we should agree they did not show any love to Sophia and built their
perception on dead facts, not on spiritual cognition, so the latter was taken by theology and
so brought it to the level of divine science. We need to keep in mind the fact that: Theology
is not Revelation, it is fully human, not divine. And theology is not individual; it is socially
organized collective perceptive reaction to revelation1.
We want to underline that theology by itself is a discipline which helps us to improve
our understanding of God; it gathered people around itself among which could be even a
theologian (according to diploma) who is an atheist. Therefore, theology is a collective
perspective inasmuch as it gathers around the researchers of one religion, lets say,
Christians. Theology is a guide in our knowledge, but theology itself does not save, while
saves only one God, still, from a humane demanding a faith which is sustained and become
deeper by knowledge proposed by Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Still into this collective there is always a group of individuals, bounded not just by
common field of research but by their faith in One God, Lord Jesus Christ, Who calls to
kinship. But if speak about the essence of theology is based on Revelation and its task is to
deepen the knowledge of humans spiritual sphere. On the other hand philosophy faces the

1 , (2001), http://www.vehi.net/berdyaev/mirobj/01.html [accessed March 23,

2015].
!3
 same tasks, it includes spiritual and/or rational forms of cognition, but at the same time
philosophy includes a wider field in cognitive possibilities, while it not necessary and
directly depends from Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition. Thought of only logical intentions
of philosophy is unwarranted, though natural, while from history we know that: Sometimes
philosophers fell to the level of crude empirics and materialism, but for a real philosopher
taste of ultramundane is natural, transcending beyond the boundaries of the world, he is not
satisfied by this reality. Philosophy always was a break from senseless empiric world that
deprives and violates us from everywhere, to a full of sense world beyond2.
Thus, the real philosophy is built on the same abilities as theology perception is
conducted by person who believes and understands. No one shall deny that dogmas are not
written aside of human logic, as well as understanding of revelation occurs not outside
human, but logic moves side by side with faith.
Nowadays we could find the idea with aiming to define philosophy as a systematic
science, aiming at truth through the exercise of reason3. Of course, the point of systematic
view is important, especially when the authority of the Church as the keeper and custodian
of revealed truth and thus as judge over theological opinions, aims at providing the truth in a
specially systematic and rational way, clear for all believers of this Church. Doubtless is that
philosophic sciences declared their progress in rational thought, though religious
philosophers (who make a majority) created their concepts not beyond their faith. Taking the
faith into account, believing thinkers tried to give well-founded answers to the questions
about human existence and destination. History shows that those are in the list of
philosophers like Blaise Pascal, Nikolay Berdyaev, Pyotr Chadaev, Gabriel Marcel, Edith
Stein and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Certainly they were not aside their faith, and if at
some point they tried to make their thought universal, not bounding them to a certain
religion or tradition, this is not a negative phenomenon, but rather shows the flexibility of
the way leading to the truth and it is, by the way, now emphasized by different
confessions after centuries of war, and as the result we see the development of ecumenism.
Apart from this the 16th century philosophys features would be useful, since:

2 Ibid.

3 Alasdair MacIntyre, God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition
(Continuum: London, 2011), 166.
!4
 That philosophy, from all its wide range of varied standpoints, is a source of, rather than a
remedy for, characteristically modern errors. Indeed its wide range of varied standpoints is
central to what is wrong with it. For, when philosophy separated itself from faith, as it did
at the close of the Middle Ages, each philosopher constructed his own philosophical
system from his own particular point of view4.
!
Such separating activity of thinkers who called themselves philosophers regarding
religion soiled its reputation. Every human is a reasonable, intelligent animal, but not every
reasonable human is a philosopher, meaning that not everyone moves on the way of love to
Gods Wisdom, or, so called agapeic mindfulness5, which seeks knowledge of the other.
So, I want to conclude that philosophy and theology now are so tightly intertwined that
they use the methods of one another and freely use the same set of instruments (faith, reason,
feelings and other qualities, given to people by the Creator), and resort to one of the listed
ways of cognition according to a call of situation. I will not deny the difference between
philosophy and theology, but I stress that to distinguish their roles in the modern world we
have to check other parameters, because the accent on whether one of the sciences mainly
has to do with reason, another one with faith, is as well as to ask a child, whom he loves
more father or mother this answer will depend on childs experience. So we conclude
that: Philosophy and theology each need and complement the other6.
Further I want to take note of aspects that in my view would show the obvious
differences between philosophy and theology.
The first note is related to administration and hierarchy of controlling authorities in the
sphere of philosophy and theology. The achievements of theological disciplines have several
necessities; one of those is that the teaching has to be legalized by higher hierarchies,
including the Church Magisterium. New openings depend on tradition, dogmas and canons,
collected throughout history. The authority of those is based on the Revelation of the Creator
reflected in Christian Bible. If we talk about our Christian tradition, here the hierarchy

4 Ibid, 152.

5William Desmond, Is There a Sabbath for Thought?: Between Religion and Philosophy (Fordham University Press:
New York, 2005), 132.

6 Alasdair MacIntyre, God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition, 166.
!5
 became obligatory7, while the truth is related to the entire community of believers, so
theologians try to avoid doubtful statements. On the other hand philosophy shows itself to be
a more independent sphere. As its history shows, the next generations can find authority in
their predecessors, but also proceed to the next level of thought, sometimes even completely
rejecting the way of thinking from the past ages. As for theology, it is hardly possible to
reject the dogmas, so the new steps have to be taken more carefully than in the field of
philosophy. And though the connection of two disciplines continues8, philosophy still
emphasized its independence, manifesting itself as a secular enterprise in its search for
truth9. Having no authoritative organ, philosophy confirms its own way in search of truth,
and the freedom of thinking gives philosophy a wider view and opens new horizons in front
of it. Regardless of the distance between the two disciplines they still keep interrelations.
Important voices of theological science can make remarks about philosophy, but in no event
limit its freedom, giving it a chance to conclude for itself. However, those who exercise the
teaching authority of the church have a duty to recall philosophy to its tasks when it neglects
them and to draw its attention to errors when it commits them because of their care for the
truth, but only philosophers, conducting their enquiries by the standards internal to
philosophical enterprise, can carry out those tasks and correct those errors.10
So, philosophers with no hierarchic structure are free in both expressing and spreading
their thoughts, even if those are doubtful. Keeping their autonomy and freedom of thinking,
they can borrow ideas and make hints to one another, while both have the goal to deepen the
Truth.
The second point which distinguishes philosophy and theology is about spreading their
teaching. Church dogmas, as a regulations and interpretations of the Theological sources
(Scripture, Tradition, Experience of the Church), have to be publicly declared, and only

7 Catechism of the Catholic Church, It (the ministry of the Church - N.P.) belongs to the sacramental nature
of ecclesial ministry that it have a collegial character. In fact, from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord
Jesus instituted the Twelve as the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.Chosen
together, they were also sent out together, and their fraternal unity would be at the service of the fraternal
communion of all the faithful: they would reflect and witness to the communion of the divine persons (877),
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm (29 April 2016).

8 MacIntyre uses the example of many thinkers from both sides (Alasdair MacIntyre, God, Philosophy, Universities: A
Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition, 169).

9 Alasdair MacIntyre, God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition, 167.

10 Ibid, 167.
!6
 afterwards they become legitimate. Theological teaching is growing out of dogmas,
considered undisputed and true and any attempt to deny those calls an immediate reaction
from the Magisterium of the Church that has power to excommunicate the free-thinker, if he
is a Christian. It is also important for the dogmas to be laid out in simple and clear form for
the believers. What concerns philosophy, its declarations obviously are not necessarily to be
public and this once more confirms its autonomous character. By the way, when a work of a
certain philosopher is published, not every mind can understand it for example, so it was
with Hegel and Kant.
The third note refers to the previous one and concerns the audience to which
philosophy and theology is addressed. Theological truth approved by the authority of the
Church refers not only to an individual but rather to community of individuals of this church.
Deepening the knowledge of a certain community, theology is based on the experience of
people belonging to it (like the Church Fathers) and teachings of their contemporaries. Of
course Muslims or Buddhist can also study dogmas of a certain Christian community, for
example to seek common features of different religions, hermeneutics or to develop
ecumenism, but substantial value the dogmas have only for a certain community.
The calling of philosophy, on the other hand is more universal. Philosophical teachings
can refer either to one confession or to several. Having no attachment to written dogmas, a
philosopher can declare truth referring to one or many communities. An example could be
the theory of intelligent design, which is a scientific theory rather than religious belief, but
does not contradict Biblical Hexameron, giving place for evolutionary theory as well11. This
theory certainly does not contradict religion12, so a Buddhist as well as a Christian,
remaining faithful to their communities both can accept the theory of intelligent design.
The last note I want to emphasize is the topic of salvation. In theology it is central and
crosses all the aspects of the discipline. Here we are again talking about canons as a basis of
theological teaching which are set by the Church through the Fathers and the Holy Councils.
They are aimed to serve to the salvation for human souls not theoretically, so to say, by
promises, but practically. The teaching of the Church contains demands to the entire

11Tina Beattie, The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion (Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd.:
London, 2007), 104.

12 Here it is good to note that Intelligent Design theory is a scientific analog of Thomas Aquinas theology, reflecting
his fifth way. Thus the fifth way answering the question about goals and possibilities of their achievements by
things with no cognitive ability also gives answer about the source of sense in the world.
!7
 community and gives practical advice to follow the commandments of Christ which are the
pointers to a perfect life and are essential for salvation. But dogmas themselves are not
saving, it is not enough to learn them by heart to understand the Creator, they are only signs
and hints to understand the truth. Depending on the kind of personality the sphere of dogmas
is more familiar to someone, while to another the philosophical aspect may be closer.
When talking about philosophy it is obvious that not its every new recognition and,
after that, proposed assumption can be important for saving of the world and people. We
have to admit that understanding such things as intelligibility, categorical imperative or
thing in itself at the first glance are not necessary for saving most souls, but if a theory
written by a philosopher will to help to deeper our knowledge about God or in His
recognition it is worth it.
Now we are talking not about the absolute autonomy of philosophical sphere. As
William Desmond underlines, philosophy is not about philosophy itself it finds its calling
through thinking and determining what is beyond its self-determining thinking13. Stressing
the question about the place of philosophy, he says that a modernity was starting to develop
a philosophical systems closing it in itself and, as consequence, philosophy got an egocentric
characteristics, while it is rather focusing on the other so it is closer to the nature of
philosophy. Philosophy does not slay the other it has a very unique form of love which is
a point of its own self-manifestation character. So to say, the power of knowing in
philosophy puts us on the field of admiration without objectification (which is often a
mistake of science)14.
What is crucial in the philosophical field, is its calling the uniqueness of which consists
of its ability to ask the questions with the purpose of searching the truth. In the article The
Catholic Philosophical Tradition Redefined the authors writes: Philosophy is a form of
enquiry that is directed toward the discovery and formulation of timeless truths, of the
universal principles, both theoretical and practical, of right reason, but such discovery
always provokes new questions, so that philosophy perennially has to renew itself, in part by
revisiting its history15. Actually this urge to ask questions is proof of openness of the

13 William Desmond, Is There a Sabbath for Thought?: Between Religion and Philosophy, 127.

14 Ibid, 130.

15 Alasdair MacIntyre, God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic Philosophical Tradition, 166.
!8
 philosophy to the world of other sciences and is an argument for denying its self-absorption
and progress just for the sake of its own achievements. Rather, this refers to the independent
character of philosophy which enables it to active development on the way of its own calling
in the world. It has never yet happened that the aim of philosophy was ruined and served just
itself. The outcomes of philosophy touches the others people, communities, science,
etc. The destiny of philosophy lies in the fact that its agapeic way of cognition helps
others to find a unique way to recognize the Truth.
!
!
Conclusion
!
From this point of view it is clear that the boundaries between philosophy and theology
to a great extent have occurred due to the historical influences. In its prime principles both
philosophy and theology have faith and a reason, and use the same or at least similar
methods. When searching differences between these two disciplines, we argue that they
should be found not so much in the spiritual internal realm as in external expression of their
experiences. This diversification we particularly see in the hierarchy and the authorities of
the way of philosophy and theology, the audience to which they direct their thought, the
purpose of this or that teaching, the field of subject they analyze.
In general, the fundamental background for theology and philosophy always must
remain the faith in the Creator. The realization that personal Wisdom, Goodness and Beauty
exists encourages us to seek the Truth and live for it without pursuing only our own interests.
Moreover, belief in God reversely serves as criteria to check the veracity of our own
thoughts, the intentions of another person or all community. Sharing of the Truth helps us to
insure that I did not commit a mistake in my reasoning or that what I believe is right, why
certain knowledge is considered as Divine Revelation, etc.
!
!
!
!
!9
 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST

Tina Beattie, The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion (Darton, Longman
and Todd Ltd.: London, 2007).
!
William Desmond, Is There a Sabbath for Thought?: Between Religion and Philosophy (Fordham
University Press: New York, 2005)
!
Alasdair MacIntyre, God, Philosophy, Universities: A Selective History of the Catholic
Philosophical Tradition (Continuum: London, 2011).
!
, (2001), http://www.vehi.net/berdyaev/mirobj/01.html
[accessed March 23, 2015].
!
, ?, trans. . .. , (-
: , 1997).
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!10