You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Philosophy of religion and theology share a subject matter — God, the soul, evil, revelation, the meaning of human life — yet they approach it in characteristically different ways, and the question of how the two should relate is itself one of the oldest in the discipline. The classic shorthand is Athens and Jerusalem: Athens, the city of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, standing for the unaided enquiry of human reason; Jerusalem, the city of prophets and the cross, standing for the truth God reveals. Are these two cities allies, rivals, or strangers who should keep to their own streets? At stake is whether religious belief can and should submit itself to the tribunal of reason, or whether faith answers to a different and higher authority that philosophy has no competence to judge. This lesson maps the terrain through the key distinction between natural and revealed theology, sets out the contrasting positions of Aquinas (reason and revelation as complementary, philosophy as the "handmaiden" of theology) and Barth (a thunderous No to natural theology), and then surveys the standard models of the relationship — conflict, independence, integration and dialogue. It connects directly to the AQA Component 2 dialogue between religion and the philosophy of religion, which asks candidates to assess Christian beliefs for their reasonableness, meaningfulness and coherence — three criteria that only make sense if philosophy and theology are in some genuine conversation. The evaluative spine is whether philosophy should be theology's servant, its judge, or its partner.
The fundamental distinction is between knowledge of God reached from below, by reason reflecting on the world, and knowledge given from above, in God's self-disclosure.
Key term: Natural theology — the attempt to establish truths about God (that God exists, and something of God's nature) through unaided human reason and reflection on the natural world, without appeal to special revelation; the classical theistic arguments (cosmological, teleological, ontological) are its exercises.
Key term: Revealed theology — theology whose content derives from God's special revelation (Scripture, tradition, the Incarnation, the Church's teaching) and is accepted on the authority of that revelation rather than established by independent philosophical argument; its truths (the Trinity, the Incarnation, the atonement) exceed what reason could reach.
Whether natural theology is possible at all is the watershed. If it is, then philosophy and theology share common ground — reason can travel some distance toward God before revelation takes over — and the relationship is cooperative. If it is not, then the only knowledge of God is revealed, philosophy has no independent access to God, and its role is at best ancillary, at worst idolatrous. Aquinas and Barth stand on opposite banks of exactly this divide.
St Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) is the great architect of the complementary relationship. In the Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles he held that reason and faith, rightly used, can never finally conflict, because both derive from the one God who is the author of all truth: a real contradiction between a sound philosophical conclusion and a genuine revealed truth is therefore impossible, and any apparent clash signals an error in our reasoning, not a war between reason and faith.
On this basis Aquinas distinguished two orders of religious truth. Some truths about God — that God exists, is one, is incorporeal, is powerful and good — are preambles of faith (praeambula fidei), accessible in principle to natural reason and demonstrated (he held) by arguments such as the Five Ways. Others — that God is triune, that the Son became incarnate, that salvation comes through Christ's death and resurrection — are articles of faith (articuli fidei) that exceed reason's reach and can be known only because God has revealed them. Reason lays the foundation; revelation raises the building it could not raise alone.
| What reason can establish (preambles) | What only revelation discloses (articles) |
|---|---|
| That God exists | That God is a Trinity of persons |
| That God is one | That God became incarnate in Christ |
| That God is incorporeal | That salvation comes through Christ's death and resurrection |
| That God is powerful, wise, good | The sacraments, the Church, the last things |
This is the integration model in its classic form. Within it, philosophy is the handmaiden of theology (philosophia ancilla theologiae): it serves theology by clarifying its concepts, supplying its rational preambles, ordering its arguments, and defending the faith against objections — important and dignified work, but in the service of, and subordinate to, the higher wisdom that comes by revelation.
Key term: Ancilla theologiae ("handmaiden of theology") — the medieval view (associated with Peter Damian and developed by Aquinas) that philosophy's proper role is to serve theology by providing rational tools and clarifications, theology retaining the superior authority because revelation is a higher source of truth than reason.
Two features of Aquinas's practice make the partnership concrete. First, his theology is a working integration, not a slogan: the Summa Theologica deploys Aristotle ("the Philosopher") on virtually every page — on causation, substance, potentiality and act, the virtues, the nature of the soul — pressing pagan metaphysics into the service of Christian doctrine, exactly the "spoiling of the Egyptians" that Augustine had licensed. Aristotle gives Aquinas the conceptual grammar; revelation gives the content that grammar is used to articulate. Second, Aquinas's God is known through the "two books" — the book of nature (general revelation, read by reason) and the book of Scripture (special revelation, received by faith) — written by the same divine Author, which is precisely why their testimony cannot finally conflict. The integration is thus underwritten by a doctrine of God: because there is one source of all truth, reason and revelation are two streams from a single spring.
Aquinas's confidence has obvious attractions — it makes faith rationally accountable and opens common ground with the unbeliever, so that believer and sceptic can argue on shared rational territory about (say) whether the world requires a first cause — but it carries a known exposure. The whole structure leans on the preambles, above all on the demonstrability of God's existence; if the classical arguments fail (Hume on causation and the fallacy of composition, Kant on the limits of the cosmological argument, Russell's "the universe is just there"), the rational foundation is shaken, and the elegant ordering of reason-then-faith loses its base. Aquinas's defenders reply that he needs only that God's existence be demonstrable in principle, and that even contested arguments shift the burden of proof; but the dependence remains a real point of vulnerability. And critics from Barth's side press a sharper, opposite worry: by making theology answerable to philosophical standards at the base, does integration not quietly install philosophy as the judge of what theology may say — so that the "handmaiden" has, in effect, become the mistress, deciding in advance which doctrines reason will permit?
At the opposite bank stands Karl Barth (1886–1968), the most influential Protestant theologian of the twentieth century and the most uncompromising opponent of natural theology. For Barth, human reason — fallen, finite, turned in on itself by sin — has no road to God. God is known only where God freely chooses to make himself known, supremely in Jesus Christ, the one Word of God. Natural theology is therefore not a modest, partial success but a fundamental error, and a dangerous one: it constructs a "God" out of human reasoning — a First Cause, a Designer, the "God of the philosophers" — and then mistakes this idol for the living God of the gospel.
Barth's objection is theological before it is epistemological. If we could reach God by our own reasoning, the knowledge of God would become a human achievement, and the initiative would pass from God's grace to human capacity. His famous "Nein!" — the title of his 1934 reply to Emil Brunner, who had argued for a modest human "point of contact" (Anknüpfungspunkt) for revelation — insists that grace owes nothing to any native human ability; the only point of contact is the one the Word itself creates when, by the Spirit, it is heard. The background was not academic: Barth wrote as the German church was accommodating itself to Nazism by appeal to "orders of creation" and natural revelation, and the Barmen Declaration (1934), which he largely drafted, confessed that the Church hears one Word of God, Jesus Christ, and rejects "other events and powers, forms and truths" as God's revelation. For Barth, then, refusing natural theology was a matter of the Church's very integrity.
On the relationship of the disciplines, Barth represents the limiting case: philosophy belongs to the human sphere of words, theology to the divine sphere of the Word; when theology lets itself be governed by philosophical categories it ceases to be theology and becomes mere anthropology — the study of human ideas about God rather than obedient response to God's actual self-revelation. Philosophy is neither handmaid nor judge; it is simply on the wrong side of an unbridgeable divide.
The standard criticisms write themselves. If reason cannot reach God at all, how can the gospel even be addressed to a rational human being, or defended as more credible than its rivals (the worry Brunner pressed)? Does Barth's position not make faith fideistic and immune to criticism, cut off from the public reasons that might commend it? And is Barth wholly consistent — does he not, in arguing his case at all, employ the very reason he disqualifies? Barth's defenders reply that he does not despise reason as such but denies it an autonomous path to God prior to revelation; reason has plenty to do within faith, ordering and expounding what revelation gives.
Barth's refusal of natural theology has a significant afterlife in the postliberal or "Yale school" theology of the later twentieth century (George Lindbeck, Hans Frei — the narrative theologians met in the postmodernism lesson). They take from Barth the conviction that theology should be done from within the Christian "language" and its scriptural narrative, rather than translated into, and justified before, some supposedly neutral philosophical framework. On this view the task is not to ground Christian claims in universal reason (the integration project) but faithfully to describe and inhabit the grammar of the believing community — a stance that converges with the Wittgensteinian independence model discussed below. The convergence is instructive: a sharply anti-philosophical theology (Barth) and a school of philosophy of religion (the Wittgensteinians) arrive, from opposite directions, at the same conclusion — that faith is not answerable to an external rational tribunal. Critics on the integrationist side reply that this purchases security at the price of isolation: a faith that refuses, in principle, to give public reasons forfeits any claim to be more reasonable than its rivals, and risks reducing "it is true" to "it is what we say here" — the very relativism Barth, as a passionate confessor of objective revelation, would have abhorred.
It is helpful to array the possibilities as four models — a scheme that adapts Ian Barbour's well-known typology for science and religion to the philosophy–theology relationship.
The conflict model holds that philosophy (or reason) and theology (or faith) are fundamentally opposed: to advance one is to retreat from the other. The position is held, strikingly, from both sides.
| Thinker | Position |
|---|---|
| Tertullian (c. 155–240) | "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" — pagan philosophy has nothing to contribute to the faith |
| Martin Luther (1483–1546) | Reason is "the Devil's whore" when it sets itself up to judge the things of God (though Luther used reason freely elsewhere) |
| Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) | From the secular side: faith is "belief without evidence," intrinsically opposed to the rational, evidence-based methods of science |
Strengths: it draws a clear boundary and registers the genuine tensions between free enquiry and committed belief. Weaknesses: it is historically false to the record — many of the greatest philosophers (Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Plantinga, Swinburne) have been believers who saw no such war — and it caricatures both sides, equating faith with credulity and reason with hostility.
The independence model holds that the two are distinct enterprises with different methods, objects and criteria of truth, occupying separate domains so that neither can judge the other. It draws on the later Wittgenstein's idea that religion and science are different "language games," each with its own grammar, so that to judge religion by scientific standards is a category mistake. Its most quoted form is Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA — Non-Overlapping Magisteria — on which science covers the empirical realm of how the world works while religion covers the realm of ultimate meaning and value, the why, so that "rightly understood" the two cannot conflict.
Key term: NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) — Gould's proposal that science and religion are non-overlapping "magisteria" (domains of teaching authority): science the realm of empirical fact and theory, religion the realm of meaning and moral value; on this view genuine conflict is impossible because the domains do not intersect.
Strengths: it defuses needless conflicts (Galileo, evolution) and respects each discipline's autonomy. Weaknesses: the separation is artificial, because religions do make claims that trespass on the empirical — that the universe is created, that miracles occur, that Christ rose bodily — so the magisteria overlap in practice. Dawkins is NOMA's sharpest critic: a universe with a God who answers prayer and works miracles is, he insists, scientifically different from one without, so religion makes factual claims and cannot be quarantined from scientific assessment. A further worry is that, pressed hard (as in some readings of D. Z. Phillips), independence reduces religious statements to non-cognitive expressions, which most believers reject as a betrayal of what they mean.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.