philosophy of religion and theology

philosophy of religion and theology

The Relationship Between Philosophy of Religion and Theology

1. Introduction

Introducing a discussion of the relationship between theology and the philosophy of religion in the modern setting, this paper is premised on the idea that theology is already, although not always self-consciously, in dialogue with a specific cultural milieu and/or elements of secular thought pattern pertaining to religion. The question arises, therefore, as to whether theology might not effectively enter into a critical and methodological self-consciousness about its own nature and sources, by taking “culture” in all its meanings, including the contemporary intellectual climate, as its proper subject matter. If theology can recognize a distinction between its transcendent concern and the implications of the gospel for mutable human affairs, and can seek to win its freedom by service to the Word, recognizing that all its claims are revisable and its present understanding partial, it must still locate this task within some ongoing and creative relationship with the actual historical situation of man emerging from God’s creative and redemptive Word. In this understanding, theology resembles what is usually meant by philosophy of religion, and the two disciplines would then be distinguished as to their different standing and sources. But it might be argued that this distinction is true to the nature of theology only if the latter is itself a philosophy of religion, i.e. a critical understanding of its own faith. It is the thesis of this paper that theology can embrace the self-understanding which has been forced upon it by modernity most effectively by taking philosophy of religion as a partner. But a certain reflective distance upon itself and its cultural situation in the light of the gospel is a need which theology can ill abandon; hence it must ask what philosophy of religion is and how it differs from theology, and whether it is possible for theology to be self-critically philosophical about its own nature and discourse without losing the identity of a speaking within the household of God.

2. Understanding Philosophy of Religion

Religion plays an important part in the intellectual and cultural history of the Western world. Instead of treating this as a universal phenomenon, it is best to think of it as a constellation of closely related features peculiar to a few societies. This will make it easier to see why religion has been so important in the West for so long, and also the different ways in which it has been important. As an inseparable part of culture, philosophy has always attempted to come to terms with religion. The result has been a rather odd area of thought, in which questions are asked and reasoning is done about a set of beliefs and a particular way of life. This is termed the philosophy of religion. Though some of the questions and reasoning are the same as those in general philosophy, others are so closely tied to a particular religious community that they are very difficult to understand for one outside it. This is also reflected when we consider theology.

3. Exploring Theology

The majority of contemporary philosophers of religion are not interested in fideism, and if we consider the many and varied religious and non-religious beliefs and attitudes which an agnostic like Flew has put forward, it seems that there is no part of religion which is exempt from philosophical scrutiny. This Flew himself has conceded with his attempt to analyze Christian rituals and language, and thereby rejecting the falsity of empiricism.

In working through the logical analysis of the concepts of religion, and the various arguments within theology philosophers are fulfilling many of these aims. Logical positivists such as A.J. Ayer and the early Wittgenstein posited the verification principle as a way of demarcating empirical knowledge from that of religious belief and philosophy. In doing so they also tried to clarify the nature and meaning of religious statements. But does theology stop at this point and become totally irrational, and unrelated to any beliefs held? Probably not. With the onset of fideism, it might be claimed that the attempt to connect religion and philosophy becomes a futile exercise, and one which should be avoided. But fideism itself is a religious position and one which requires analysis. At any rate, it is difficult to know at which point in the history of philosophy of religion theology became totally discarded.

Theology seems so often to be the nemesis of philosophers of religion, but why should this be? It is quite evident why theologians often take this view, after all most philosophers are trying to criticize theology. But given the aims of the philosophers of religion put forward as: clarification of concepts, establishment of the truth or falsehood of propositions and the logical relations between them, and assessing the worth of religious attitudes, and the degree to which they are rationally held, the connection between the two disciplines is not as tenuous as it might at first seem.

4. The Interplay Between Philosophy of Religion and Theology

Theologians will often define theology as the disciplined reflection of the Christian church on its beliefs and is an activity that is derived from a complex of reasons for an internal need by the church to express the faith and an external stimulus or provocation. By this, it is meant that theology is an intellectual activity but one that is closely related to its practical life of faith. More recently, people have seen theology as the attempt to express the Christian message in a certain time and culture or to understand that message in the light of a certain intellectual or philosophical standpoint. By comparing these definitions of philosophy, of religion, and theology, it becomes apparent that philosophy of religion is a more general term that encompasses theology. Any work labeled as philosophy of religion that is written by a theologian will, in the context of the discussion, be considered to be theology.

Each and every subject that is studied has its own unique identity and content. The same can be said about philosophy of religion and theology. As a student starts to study a particular subject, he/she will automatically have a question in mind: “What exactly is this subject and what is its content?” Philosophers of religion ask themselves the same question. Basil Mitchell, in his book “Faith and Criticism,” writes, “A discipline is, in large part, defined by its characteristic methods of investigation.” The method which philosophy of religion characteristically employs is philosophical analysis applied to religious faith and practice. This does not mean that all philosophy of religion is exclusively concerned with the analysis of religious data, as some are concerned with constructing a general philosophy to underpin religious belief.

4.1 Defining “Philosophy of Religion” and “Theology”

5. Conclusion

Since the publication of “On Philosophy of Religion” in 1980, he has been an incisive critic of much that is loose or uncritical in the field. He has done so much to professionalize. This book continues that tradition. The concern of this study has been to find religion in a part of intellectual and cultural life to which, commonly, it has not been reckoned to belong. A part of life “ordered to the peaceful coexistence of individuals with irreconcilably opposed beliefs.” To the extent that many readers will remain unpersuaded from their various bases in the Christian faith that the nature of religion so conceived is worthy enough to merit a long course of philosophical labor, the relevance of this book to philosophy will remain problematic for them. That is an objection which cannot be met to anyone’s satisfaction before philosophers achieve a wiser and more just social order than now exists. But it is to be feared that in the absence of well-worked-out alternative tales concerning the nature and destiny of man, such as the ones provided by traditional religions, the task of finding such an order will be excessively difficult. Philosophers who currently hold no religion cannot be faulted if, out of desperation, they turn to one of these. From start to finish, this essay has been moving toward an idea of philosophy of religion so Maimonidean in spirit that it cannot determine what is or is not delusory or authentic in the life of men, either individually or collectively, without at the same time being drawn into some sort of theological dialogue. But in its Maimonidean form, this conclusion is spoken on Mount Sinai, a command to halt in a barren desert and turn back into the wilderness. Readers who agree that at the end of the day we are necessarily taking the long course leading into theology are likely to seek this essay’s secular successors. If any work on philosophy of religion can be more than merely a derivative part of a theologian’s training, it is one that has been written precisely in an age when there no longer is a generally acknowledged single language or mode of discourse common to all educated men. This essay has been just such a work, a philosophizing in the service of various philosophizings about religion.