Philosophy vs. Theology

[robert brown]

What would you say the difference between "philosophy" and "theology" is? Especially from a Reformed perspective?

It seems to me that if we take the Bible as a basic presupposition, that affects all areas of "philosophy"--not only religion, but also metaphysics, epistemology, ethics(especially ethics!) and so forth. So, for the Christian, is there(or should there be) a difference between philosophy and theology? Or are they co-extensive in scope?

[New John]

Any philosophy will start with some kind of presupposition, even if it is that you can't know or assume anything with certainty. The difficulty for modern philosophy (or any humanistic system) is the impossibility of constructing a coherent, consistent belief system with man (humans) as the starting point. In my opinion, Christianity is the only belief system that comprehensively and logically explains the world in which we must actually live. I don't think that you have to begin with the Bible as truth as a presupposition for concluding Christianity as true. But, I do think you have to presuppose God, some Higher Being, as a given.

I do not think they are co-extensive in scope. I think philosophy fails to fully account for the entirety of the human experience, whereas theology (properly constructed and applied) explains and accounts for all of the reality in which we must actually live.

[Otsukafan]

In academic terms, Philosophy is the study of why we do what we do. Theology is the study of why God does what He does.

[Kim]

Philosophy is about the why. Theology is about the who. Theology by definition is the study of God and how and why he operates but it's focus is on knowing God. Philosophy is more about understanding circumstances etal. and such or so I think. I think Ots said this as well.

[New John]

With respects, there is plenty about the "why" in theology. Christianity offers explanations on the "why" in the larger context of the "who". Philosophy, especially the modern variety, often denies the "who" (God) or tries to explain the "why" apart from from the who. Philosophy has by and large concluded that you must separate the spiritual from the physical, and as a result can offer no satisfactory explanation of either. In fact, the spiritual is often dismissed entirely.

The Reformation helped bring about a new way of thought, or maybe a renewed belief in an old way. Philosophy had assigned certain things to the physical world and others to the spiritual realm, and the pre-Reformation church had bought into this two-tiered way of viewing existence. Depending on your belief system, you granted more or less prestige to the physical. The one thing that almost all the systems had in common was that it requires an irrational leap of faith to explain the spiritual. The spiritual is where meaning is found in life, but they couldn't rationally account for this meaning. I think that ultimately this is because philosophy (and sometimes theology) ultimately tries to view everything with man at the center.

The Reformation was important in bringing back a proper appreciation for the physical world (within the church) while not granting it preeminence. It led to a belief that Christian philosophy can offer a rational and unifying belief system. It explains the physical world, the who and the why. It explains the spiritual, the who and the why. And, it ties the two together in a rational way.

[David Turner]

All theologians are philosophers, specializing under the categories of Metaphysics and/or Meta-ethics. Prior to the Age of Reason metaphysics received a high level of respect. Today's secularist attempts to throw the credibility of theistic reason to the garbage heap should not dissuade clear thinking theologians from entering into solid philosophical discussions. All philosophers enter debate with some metaphysical presupposition. One's concept of God biases all other categories of philosophy (epistemology, philosophy of science, etc.).

[Harry]

I heard it said that all theology is Christology anything else is philosophy.

[Char]

Yeah, philosophy has to do with "truth" or "wisdom". Christian theology also seeks truth, but seeks a certain truth specifically in the self revelation of God (it also must presuppose both that he is and that he is knowable in some way as a given).

If you recall, the last time we discussed this, I cited fideism as a sometimes corrective to the more rationalistic schools of thought (or at the very least, the ideas of Locke). Unfortunately I didn't have time to finish that thought off there, but from the Reformed (indeed, Christian) perspective, all truth must be submitted to the word of God. Philosophy does not make the same demand.

So the Reformation tradition has traditionally expressed antipathy to philosophies that denegrate direct revelation or try to find a base of truth other than that, especially when speaking about God. Interestingly the question is actually pretty much addressed directly in one of the seminal documents of the Reformation-the Heidelberg Disputation.

Luther argued that Christianity simply opposes human reason, so no amount of reason is going to get you to the great truth of the cross. If he were to agree that a philosopher is a theologian, it would only be to say he is a theologian of glory-that is he seeks the truth, but because he bases this search in what he sees or in himself, he looks in the wrong places for God. He looks for God where logic says God should be, not where God actually allows himself to be found. For no one expects the God they understand from natural reason to become incarnate and die some bloody death out in the middle of nowhere. That just has to be revealed and accepted.

So the philosopher can never fully understand theology, unless he submits to that revelation and he then becomes a true theologian. Not before. But still, the wisdom that sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.

But we know from experience he can borrow capital and come up with some very true and fine philosophical constructs, and do work elsewhere. There's other things we could say, but basically no they really should not be collapsed into one another-especially since it's usually the special revelation of Christ that theology must prize above all things that comes out ragged in that case. At least it always has.

A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.

It's been sooo long since I said that...

[Dallas]

Philosophy and Theology are related. Philosophy has to do with general revelation whereas theology has to do with special revelation. Philosophy will try to come up with an intellectual justification for what we know and how we come to know it. Philosophy can only establish general knowledge that serves as a foundation that leads us to special revelation.Theology, on the other hand, simply presupposes a certain philosophy as the beginning point in the study of the special revelation. For example Christian philosophy may seek to prove that the Bible is inspired word of God. Christian theology would then begin by presupposing the inspiration that was established in Christian philosophy as the starting point for discussion

[Jonathan Perez]

The aim and end of Philosophy is a Theology. The questions a philosopher asks can only lead to a theology.

What is the meaning of life?
Why are we here?
What is life all about?
What is the meaning of it all?

These are all classic questions of Philosophy that can only end up in a theology.