Athiesm, Theology, and Philosophy
I was recently at a local bookstore and they had an (unfortunately small) section on philosophy. In this section they also had many books on atheism (Dawkins, Dennett, the four horsemen), yet no books on theism. This wasn't too surprising to me, after all they do also have a religion section (and I'm sure both theists and atheists wouldn't like to see atheist books in a religious section). But it did get me wondering what the difference is between theology, religion, and philosophy (of religion). After all, there are plenty of books that, despite concerning themselves with religion, would more appropriately fall into the "philosophy" section than the "religion" section.
In some cases, I've heard that theology is a specific branch/subset of philosophy of religion. In this case, theological posts would therefore belong on a site like this. But to me, how would we differentiate a theological post/claim from a philosophical one?
In some cases, I've heard that theology is a specific branch/subset of philosophy of religion. In this case, theological posts would therefore belong on a site like this. But to me, how would we differentiate a theological post/claim from a philosophical one?
Comments (92)
All theology I've read starts with belief in God. Philosophy does not start with such assumption.
I generally take the view that this is in the eye of the beholder. But in general if a religion is making claims about the nature of reality (on ontological and epistemological grounds) they are open to philosophical argument. Remember just defining religion is almost impossible. In fact, religion expert and writer Karen Armstrong has said it is impossible to define it.
In the bookshops in my town, religion and atheism share shelves, no issues.
That's not what a theologian is doing. Religious worldviews are views about the nature of reality. But theologians do not assess how likely it is that they are true. If they do start doing that, then they're a theologian who is doing philosophy
I've made two thread on his topic, both active recently.
The Concept of Religion had the nature of definition as it's explicit theme, using religion as the exemplar. My contention, which remains strong, is that religion has no essence, nothing that is common to all, and only, the many variants. Rather it is a "form of life" involving such things as ritual, longing, and beliefs in transcendence of one form or anther. The term "religion" remains useful, despite being fuzzy arounf the edges - not unlike "woman".
The other, older thread is Demarcating theology, or, what not to post to Philosophy of Religion. This was about content on this forum. The contention there is that posts based exclusively on scripture, or claiming god to be the trite answer to some issue, or attempts at evangelism are not appropriate.
There's a legitimate branch of philosophy that is concerned with natural theology. It's defining characteristic is that unlike other theologies it does not rely on scripture, mysticism or revelation. Hence, just talking about god is not sufficient to differentiate theology form philosophy.
Roughly speaking, philosophy starts with a problem and explores rational solutions, while theology starts with the solution found in this or that religion, and seeks to apply it to the problem. Their methods are diametrically opposed.
A favourite Dave Allen joke carries the point:
Theology starts with the black cat.
Does the Timaeus count as a proponent of natural theology?
There's a doctoral thesis for you.
Plato predates the notion of "religion". Despite that misgiving, I'd count it as natural theology.
Are you onboard with Aristotle saying that the first principles that bring about the realm of becoming we live in is a matter of what he called "theology"?
That does not sound like Aristotle. Can you cite something with him saying that?
What exactly are these "first principles?"
In the Metaphysics he explains the concept of God, or prime mover, but it is not the cause of becoming.
But here's the thing; and correct me if I am in error; I do not think that Aristotle made use of the scriptures in his arguments. He was looking for the cat; he didn't start from the assumption he had found it.
Aristotle was explicitly opposed to religion. I do not remember the passage, but he criticized making god into a form like a human or animal. So, no Jesus, no Christianity.
Well, that sort of follows from his dates.
But we see Aristotle through a Christianising lens, one that came via Islam and neoplatonism. I won't pretend to knowing what he really thought.
I do. God, the prime mover is thought thinking thought. The cause of motion yet itself not in motion. Christians used this idea directly but made it into a person, giving it subjectivity.
God, for Aristotle, has no subjectivity.
:up:
Quoting Paulm12
Consider these distinctions from Banno's recent thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/682234
I think philosophy can start with any assumption it pleases to.
That's the difference between science and philosophy. Scientific theories need some sort of basis, then justification. Philosophical thoughts need no justification. Philosophical thoughts can start with a reasoned basis (such as the Relativity theory and how it was developed) and can start with no basis whatsoever (such as religions.) If a philosophical thought gains justification, the topic becomes a topic of science.
@Jackson, please see my post three posts down. It unifies our seemingly oppositional opinions.
"Therefore it must be of itself that the divine thought thinks (since it is the most excellent of things), and its thinking is a thinking on thinking." Metaphysics, Aristotle; BkXII, 9.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.12.xii.html
Yes, I was actually going off of some of the ideas in these threads. In particular you say
Which I do very much agree with. Anything to associate it with an idea like "belief" is going to be Judeo-Christian influenced and perhaps biased. For instance, many people consider Buddhism to be a religion, but it is also doesn't have any theistic beliefs (in fact I've heard it described as an atheistic religion).
Totally agree. In many ways metaphysical claims that are often found in religions make it challenging to differentiate it from philosophy. And when we think of the "practical philosophy" that many religious figures (Jesus, Buddha, etc) have, it is hard (for me) to see them as different from other philosophers at the time before analytic philosophy became a thing.
Yeah, especially with the work of Aquinas who sort of reconciled Aristotelean Philosophy with Christianity (similar to what Augustine did with [neo] platonism).
Philosophy treats topics that have a reasoned basis, and theories are built using logic from that basis. Religion in this sense is philosophy; historically, and to some degree in the present, people do see a basis to religions. However, when you think long and hard, you realize that what makes a belief system a religion, has no basis. So religion, at best, is a speculative philosophy, inasmuch as it has some basic premises, upon which it builds, but the premises are mere fantasy, nothing to do with observed reality.
I think that is true. On the other hand, he based his model upon separating the 'realm of becoming' from what is timeless:
So, it is evident from what has been said that what is called "a form" or "a substance" is not generated, but what is generated is the composite which is named according to that form, and that there is matter in everything that is generated, and in the latter one part is this and another that.
— Metaphysics, 1033b 15, translated by H.G. Apostle
In regards to recognizing a 'natural' theology in contrast to any other kind, this thing about time and what happens within it is not just a narrative of revelation and what might be promised by gods. Or if it is, then there is no distinction to be made between kinds of theology.
What does that have to do with "the realm of becoming?"
Generated beings happen because they appear through time and so have beginnings and endings as organisms. That element of this life is sharply distinguished in Aristotle from what is presumed to be timeless.
I don't think Aristotle believes anything is timeless. His ontology is that both intelligence and materiality are coexistent. Neither precedes the other. The physical universe always existed and nous/intelligence always existed.
Quote passages that support your view.
I'd have to do more research to find it. But I cited his description of God as pure thought. God/Prime Mover causes motion for both physical things and mental.
St. Thomas and Christian theology makes God the creator of the physical world, but Aristotle explicitly denies this.
I couldn't disagree more. Most religions have some canonical figure or text(s) that forms the basis of their religion. Take Christianity-I'd say with very good confidence that there probably was someone named Jesus who lived, died, and taught stuff which was written down and was at least similar to what we see in the New Testament, etc. Even if you reject any of the miracle claims it certainly has something to do with observed reality. Furthermore, in my experience, most people who participate in religion or go to church aren't going to hear a lecture on the metaphysical probabilities that these miracles actually happened. Instead they are reflecting on how this text/story/teaching applies to their daily life. This, to me, is where it becomes extremely difficult to separate religion and philosophy.
If the stories in religious texts are mythological, I think it becomes even more difficult to separate them from philosophy, or the sorts of thought experiments that philosophy often engages in (that may have nothing to do with observed reality). I can imagine someone 1,000 years from now looking at the trolly problem and arguing whether or not there were actually 5 people laying on the track.
Exactly. For instance, say there's an atheistic philosopher who starts with the assumption that a certain god/gods exists and then tries to show that it leads to some logical inconsistency. I don't think this would fall under theology. But it does start with an assumption that god/gods exists as a premise. So I don't think the presumption of the existence of god/gods is what differentiates theology from philosophy. Maybe it is what is accepted as canon.
Well, you asked if Aristotle distinguished the realm of Becoming from some conditions that were not bound by those limits. In the context of asking what is 'theological', that is an important difference to bring to mind.
What are you saying Aristotle's theology is?
Here we differ. Religious texts are no more reliable to provide evidence of divine intervention than, for instance, "Romeo and Juliet" by Shakespeare provides evidence that Romeo and Juliet died PRECISELY the way they did.
You may want to argue that RnJ provides evidence to human love and tragedy; much like the Holy Books provide evidence to human foibles. True. But the Holy Books provide no evidence to Devine Intervention, much like RnJ provide no evidence to the historical event of RnJ.
Anyone can claim miracles that happened two thousand years ago. Heck, anyone can claim miracles that happened yesterday. But nobody can predict miracles that will happen later today and tomorrow, yet we can predict that people will fall in love and people will meet tragic endings later today and tomorrow.
THIS is the big difference why one ought not to believe that the Holy Books are Holy or even reliable for their claims of supernatural events. They are totally unverifiable. And so are each and every claim of any miracle even that has been claimed in modern times.
I think you are missing the point. The value of Holy Books or religion isn't only tied to the reliability of their supernatural claims. Like I said, I don't think people are going to church to debate the epistemologically of miracles. If anything, religion provides an accessible, "practical philosophy" for how people are to live their lives and treat other people. Even if the supernatural or miracle claims are unverifiable, the impact religion has on peoples' lives is verifiable. It improves health, learning, economic well-being, self-control, self-esteem, and empathy.
This happens all the time: someone gets sent to prison who committed a crime, they find God or Jesus or religion in prison, turn their life around, and then start proselytizing about the transformation that they had. Would you say they have no justification for their belief in the "truth" of the claims behind their transformation? Or that their proselytizing to other inmates or sharing their transformation is somehow a "moral crime"?
I agree that knowingly disseminating fantasy as reality is immoral. But there is a difference between knowingly spewing fantasy as if it were reality, and sharing your experience because you believe it is true or your belief in it changed *your* life.
That part of religion is a part of religion, but it is not the religious part. Psychologists, psychiatrists do the same thing for and to people. Teachers in school do the same. Parents do it to their children. Peers do it to their peers, be they children, teens or adults.
You can scour the Holy Books for everyday advice how to live. Such as this:
Deuteronomy 25: 11: If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Or this:
Deuteronomy 20: 16: However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
So if you inherit a house in New Jersey left to you by an aunt, then you must kill everyone and everything that breathes and preaches in that city.
Therefore I say unto you, Paul, that thou shan't read the Holy Bible for guidance for everyday moral or civil behaviour; instead, thou shalt read the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for thy purpose for behaving normally. Just don't do anything that's in the DSM.
Contrast that with, for example, Kierkegaard's use of examples from scripture to play with the relation between faith and truth. That seems to me to be philosophical, not theological. Hence, as you said, "The value of Holy Books or religion isn't only tied to the reliability of their supernatural claims". They may have a place in philosophical discussion as example or metaphor, but not as assumptions.
I think this was rhetorical. He is reported to have said:
In other words, he was well aware of the danger of allegations of impiety and atheism. So, the first thing to be said about first things must be said about the gods. But perhaps what is most revealing is what is not said. A prime mover is not something to be prayed to or sacrificed to. Prime movers do not protect or intervene on our behalf or reward and punish. They do not have priests or oracles or occult mysteries.
Yes, Aristotle was clearly opposed to religion. He calls God (theos) the Prime Mover, but it has no properties of subjectivity.
I understand the distinction between methods that you make. I agree with Fooloso4 that people do not build temples to the Prime Mover.
The emphasis upon creeds is not the same amongst different kinds of worship. The difference of methods is not so much about beliefs being 'incontrovertible' as it involves a relationship to a divine agent (or agents). In that sense, Aristotle's god is impersonal in comparison to the Olympian pantheon as well as those groups gathered in particular testimonies of faith connected to a world shaped by our decisions.
So, Paul's faith, for instance, is not a good measure of what giving respect to Apollo or Dionysus involves. The differences of method that separates the 'personal' from the 'impersonal', is not self-explanatory toward the purpose of distinguishing the divine from the natural for all who try to do it. That would clump together what should be seen in contrast.
My impression from reading Aristotle is that the unfolding of beings according to their potential to become what they were meant to be is the clearest encounter with a maker of the world. There is encouragement to become 'more like' this agent but those encouragements happen in the context of recognizing that what makes us is tied to our agency no matter what.
Aristotle is not that far from approaching creation stories in the manner of Timaeus, where we are told constantly that the stories are 'likely' but cannot be confirmed. What Aristotle did with the Prime Mover is to introduce that factor as an X. He does not know the value but can proceed without knowing it. It has a function.
Paul was not content to disagree with the 'natural' world but presented his vision as a "foolishness to the Greeks and a scandal for the Jews," It was a diremption with the philosophical that became philosophical. A personal vision that would sweep away tradition and the 'thinking' of the time which others tried to heal.
That is a lot different from Apollo cutting a deal with the Furies over the limits of revenge.
A few comments. Aristotle clearly does not think God/Prime Mover is the maker of the world. This is a Christian concept. For Aristotle, God has no agency.
Will you expand and explain the second paragraph, especially, "What Aristotle did with the Prime Mover is to introduce that factor as an X.
The demiurg sets it in motion only?
Aristotle never refers to a demiurg.
Aristotle does not assign the role of 'creator of the universe' to the Prime Mover but there is much agency implied in being both the efficient and formal cause of all that is generated. Aristotle does sharply separate what is generated from what is 'eternal'. The discussion has more to do with departures from Plato than anything "Christian".
I don't have an image for what you are thinking of in this regard.
Prime Mover is only final cause. There is no efficient cause.
And the unmoved mover? How he moves?
The Prime Mover does not move.
Why is he called mover then?
The cause of motion without itself being in motion.
Rather than present a challenge to this statement, I ask you to provide the basis for it.
The 'formal' cause, by the way, is to say that what one has been made for, is for the sake of fulfilling that possibility to the furthest extent.
That sounds like agency to me. I figure some amount of mutual understanding about this should come before explaining my use of X idea.
I don't understand your reference to this as a 'Christian' idea.
Yes, but how can you set something in motion without moving yourself? Is he inert, supermassive?
Aristotle is talking about the cause of all motion.
Formal cause just means the shape or form of something. Final cause is the that for the sake of which something happens.
So that's not motion? How can things get in motion without giving them a start kick?
Point taken. I see them as joined together. But proceed with the same question regarding 'final cause'.
God has legs? What is the kick start?
My point is that St Thomas used Aristotle's concept of God but added the efficient cause of causing the physical universe to exist. The Prime Mover does not cause physical things to exist.
To give it a push.
That is the question I am asking. How does God do that?
Ah. With his hands?
Please cite where you read this in Aquinas.
From the point of view in Aristotle, referring to an 'unmoved' mover is the ultimate image of an efficient cause.
The Summa. St Thomas refers to Aristotle as "The Philosopher." I do not remember exactly the section, but he says The Church believes the world was created, without saying Aristotle was wrong.
Prime Mover. The Prime Mover does not move. There are many unmoved movers. Only one Prime Unmoved Mover.
Yes, I get the unmoved part. Where in Aquinas does he suggest this agency is not an 'efficient cause'?
St Thomas is not attributing to Aristotle that his concept of God (Prime Mover) was an efficient cause. It seems quite clear that for Aristotle God has no agency.
I don't know what texts you are referring to assert these statements with such certainty.
Aristotle,Metaphysics, Book XII, sections 7 and 9.
And the Aquinas part?
I will be back with my books tomorrow.
Aquinas: one God in three persons, as final and efficient creator out of nothing. Although he does say reason can't disprove an eternal universe he holds to creation from faith and has many new arguments based on Aristotle attempting to prove the existence of God.
The problem with their arguments is that everything has potential through their actuality and it can't be proven that matter is inferior to simplicity
Do you have a passage of Aquinas that brings this point about simplicity forward?
Contra Gentiles chapter 16-20
The books are labeled according to Greek letters. Are you referring to Lambda or Mu?
Mu
You are right, the prime mover would have to be physical to be an efficient cause.
First lets put things in Categories.
Atheism was one of the major achievements of Philosophy (together with naturalism). As a result they allowed Science to experience a run away success in epistemology for more than 500 years and that was achieved by just removing agency and Arguments from ignorance from the list of "possible" answers and explanations.
Theology was a worldview that sneaked in Philosophy really early due to our superstitious nature and biological urges to ease our epistemic and existential anxieties.
We now view all supernatural worldviews as pseudo philosophy and this is why you won't find serious works under that tag.
Quoting Paulm12
-Theology is the umbrella term where different religions arise and flourish.
Since we were unable to find any "wise" claims originating from theology(claims that can inform us of facts and expand our understanding for the world we live in), Philosophy is limited in studying these beliefs and their role in our societies.
-If you read all my comments, that is my main argument. Theological claims are not Philosophical.
In order to understand that distinction, one needs to understand what Philosophy really is.
The etymology of the word inform us for the goal any philosophical inquiry should have." Produce wise claims that expand our understanding of our world and inform our actions".
In order for any claim to be wise it needs to be founded or originate from epistemic foundations.
We can NOT accept a claim to be wise when it is in conflict with Knowledge.
With that fact in mind we can easily see that Theology can not provide any wise claims because none of its convictions are based on knowledge. They are unfalsifiable faith based beliefs.
What philosophy can do is study what people believe and see whether they have a positive or negative impact on facts of reality.
So theology has more of a "chronicling" role in Philosophy than an actual discipline that can produce wise claims.
What we can say for sure is that the Theological assumptions are a poor source of wisdom or epistemology and this is why we can only find Philosophy studying its history and social impact than counting its philosophical contributions.
That totally depends on the theology used. A theology that specifies it's gods and mentions their reasons for creation, can have profound impact on epistemology and be a source of deep wisdom, no matter how much you don't want this to be.
Specifying unfalsifiable concepts doesn't really replace the need of epistemic foundations in a claim.
In order for a claim to be wise, it needs to be based on knowledge.
i.e. You can find my tip of "jumping from the window to reach your car fast" to be wise especially when you are in a harry, but if my "wise" claim ignores the fact that the apartment is at the top floor of a tall building...that doesn't make it so wise...
So you need epistemic foundations for any claim to be wise...thus Philosophical.
-" A theology that specifies it's gods and mentions their reasons for creation, can have profound impact on epistemology and be a source of deep wisdom,"
Now If that was indeed the case then we should've been able to find parts of our Epistemology based on Supernatural Principles...and those principles should be able to produce testable predictions and technical applications when applied !
As far as I am aware no such entries have ever been made it in our Academic epistemology and we don't have any Major Philosophical breakthroughs.
So we really need to investigate why a religious claim appears to have profound implications in knowledge or wisdom and identify the true cause. Most of the times is just reason that happens to hold unnecessary supernatural assumptions.
Maybe not, but these unfalsifiable concepts are needed as concepts within the sciences and outside of it ti direct science. For example, I think the gods, in their common effort to create the ingredients of the universe, created the most simple and perfect particles, which means only two will do. A preon model.
I don't agree. Wise claims need not be based on knowledge. On the contrary. A wise claim can be based on knowledge, but not necessarily so and wise claims direct knowledge.
-I don't make sense of your statement. Science doesn't do assumptions, especially those who are in conflict with the observable paradigm. Again you need to demonstrate objective a cause (god) in order to use it in your argument. If not you are using an unsound arguments as a foundation for the rest of your claims and that is pseudo philosophy. Your foundations need to be epistemically solid.
So you say you don't agree...and then you stress their strong relation!(weird!)
As I posted many times, a wise claim needs to be based on knowledge, so that we expand our understanding of the world (produce more knowledge).
Again in order to make a wise claim you need the FACTS.(knowledge).
Putting the facts together is what makes your narrative wise. Using your narrative is what allow you to understand more things about the world(produce more knowledge).
Can a 5 kid provide you a wise claim for human sex life? Of course not because the kid doesn't know the facts. Wisdom doesn't form out of thin air...the better the facts the greater the value of wisdom in a statement. this isn't debatable. Aristotle knew it and this is why he placed Physika(science) within the Philosophical method!
This is not difficult.
That is, of course, because in your reality gods don't exist.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
There always have to be assumptions made against the paradigm. Science would be stuck if not. My assumption is quarks and leptons being composite. Which is against the standard (model) or current paradigm. But god inspired.
I said it can be based on knowledge. But not necessarily.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
That's a dogma. Well, actually no. It's a false claim.
I agree. But the narrative doesn't need fact based. The narrative can even shape the facts.
I don't accept "personal realities". I only accept A reality where everything in it can be objectively verified by the same high standards of evidence and methods of evaluation.
If you are arguing about subjective personal realities then I have no interest in claims that you can not objectively demonstrate to be true.
Last time I checked 4.300 religions , 160+spiritual categories and numerous pseudo philosophical worldviews make claims about their subjective realities.
"Mine" only has one objective version and it is challenged by the high standards of science.
This objective "reality" allows you to post your comments on this platform....
You can not have your pie and eat it too. Either your wisdom is founded on knowledge or it can be empty deepities without foundations.
(coincidences are not impossible).
Quoting Haglund
lol no it isn't its a condition for a claim to be wise. Wisdom demands data in order to arrive to an informed conclusion BY DEFAULT.
You seem to cherry pick my lines....you tend to ignore those that prove the problematic nature of your belief.
Again its a good reason why older people are wiser than toddlers, or those who reflect upon their observations or their acquired knowledge etc...this is not debatable.
:up: :clap:
-That is magical thinking. Sure narrative can guide us to specific facts but bad narrative can make up facts (god beliefs).
Religions is a great example on how faith based narrative creates a distorted picture of the world and its facts.
i.e. you are denying an obvious facts....wisdom needs input in order to be credible.
You have strong beliefs that doesn't allow you to see and accept simple facts.
Its neither Science's or Philosophy's problem.
Bad Philosophers and Theology allow scientists and good philosophers to "rub facts in their face".
Again Science and Philosophy have pretty clear goals. The production of Knowledge and Wisdom. Bad philosophy and theology provide none of the above.
Its not fair to demand respect from others when "you"(not you specifically) want to play tennis...without the net. You are not a tennis player...just because you hold a racket.
Exactly! How lamentable it is that this is parenticide. Daughter ideas attacking/killing parent ideas. The world of memes seems more depraved and violent than the world of animals. The stakes are probably higher, oui?
As far as what I wrote is concerned, I'm serving in the capacity of a conscientious reporter.
You don't really enjoy tight corners...right?
Quoting Agent Smith
-Well that is more of a biased report. As an honest reporter you need to dig up the reasons why Science and Philosophy NEEDS to keep theologians and pseudo philosophers out from their body of knowledge and wisdom.
It took us thousands of years to construct and test our logical and empirical methods of evaluations and your argument now is " lets jeopardise the purity of our epistemology by being kind to magical thinkers and pseudo intellectuals?"...when we already know the extent they went to keep our knowledge within their superstitious beliefs.
I don't think anybody does/should. Why, do you enjoy 'em? Why
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
You're putting words in my mouth, Nickolasgaspar. I never said religion, science, and philosophy should be organized into some kinda Epistemic Trinity/Threesome ( :wink: ) - the purveyor of all knowledge. I meant only to regurgitate what my eyes saw and my ears heard - some scientists have a dim view of philosophy, as dim a view as some philosophers have of religion/theology. My intent was to make that public on this forum.