Posted Joshua Woo
We are currently going through Diogenes Allen's book 'Philosophy For Understanding Theology', chapter by chapter. We had our first session today.
Diogenes Allen is currently Stuart Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary. He wrote this book in the early 1980s to help students to understand the philosophical background of Christian theology. Since its publication, the book has aided many students in understanding the history of Christian thoughts. (Eric Springsted, 'Philosopher In Service Of The Church: Diogenes Allen retires after 35 years at PTS,' in Inspire, Summer/Fall 2002, volume 7, no. 1.)
Christian and non-Christian thinking:
Our session began by each of us sharing what do we understand by the term 'philosophy'?
Andreas shared that philosophy is the subject that tries to make sense of life. Jonah and Wei Yi said that whenever they hear the word 'philosophy', they would think of 'metaphysics'.
Katherine has the impression that philosophy probes deep into life, asking questions about the origin and meaning of it. Mui Kiang indicated that philosophy helps us to engage, clarify, and respond critically in our communication with people.
Others said that it a force that lies behind everything, for instance in all the fiction and non-fiction books that we read (Andreas added that it includes cook books and books on gardening). As long as we probe deeper, we would find philosophy.
The general consensus that I gathered from the group was the understanding that philosophy is that which helps us to approach life deeper, to learn about and examine it more consciously.
Then we proceeded by the reading of two extracts of ancient poems:
[Minos said to Zeus]
"They fashioned a tomb for you, O holy and high one,
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But you are not dead: You live and abide forever;
For in you we live and move and have our being."
(Extract from Cretica, a poem by Cretan philosopher and religious prophet Epimenides of Knossos)
"Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken;
For every street, every marketplace is full of Zeus;
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.;
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus;
For we are indeed his offspring..."
(Extract from Phaenomena), a poet by Greek philosopher and doctor Aratus)
Then followed by a reading from Acts 17.24 to 28:
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’"
And finally, we read from apostle Paul's letter to Titus (1.12-13):
"One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith..."
What are we seeing here? Was Paul's theology shaped by Greek philosophy and theology, or was he using relevant non-Christian thoughts to explain Christian theology according to his audience?
Allen states that Christian theology's two main sources are the Bible and Hellenistic culture, especially Greek philosophy. Acts 17.28 is an example where Christian theology has an identical idea with that of Greek theology. Hence we see that there are identical ideas between Christian's and non-Christian's thoughts.
Critic of Christianity often charges that Christian theology is actually derived and shaped by non-Christian theology. Whether this is correct is unanswerable. We simply have no way to verify that. The fact that Paul quoted from non-Christian ideas does not say anything more than the fact that he quoted them. It could very well be that Paul already had those conviction and his employment of them were for mere missiological purposes.
Nonetheless what is certain is that there are areas where Christian thoughts and non-Christian ones converged. Therefore the distinctiveness of Christian thinking can be expected from non-Christians.
Jonah illustrated this point with us with a Chinese proverb, "A damaged clock still gets the time right twice a day." Non-Christian thoughts still have something Christian within them.
Ontology and epistemology:
Allen pointed out the two fundamental ways that we can use to discern and compare between Christian and non-Christian ideas.
The first way is 'ontology'. Basically, ontology is the status of a thing in reality. For eg. I am a real person while Gandalf from the book 'Lord of the Ring' is a fictional person. We are ontologically different. We do not share identical status in reality.
Second way is 'epistemology'. It is a "study of the kinds of ground on which we make claims and which studies the relationship between different grounds." This concerns the source of our knowledge, our capability to know and verifiability of what we know.
In the chapter, Allen points out that the foundation of Christian theology is the ontology of the world as God's creation. "The Genesis stories of creation make it clear that the world has a beginning. Because it has a beginning, it is not eternal. This means it is not ultimate. God, its Maker, who is without beginning or end, is ultimate. This is utterly different from Aristotle's view. For him the universe had no beginning. It has always existed and always will exist. [...] Its existence is inferred from the motions we observe on earth and in the heavens." (Italic original)
Our epistemic ground (that is our source for this knowledge about the ontology of the world as God's creation) is in God's own initiative to reveal it to us.
Allen wrote, "The grounds for [Aristotle's claim rest on] the epistemological principle: we assert only what must be asserted to account for the operations of the world. A search for the principles of the world's operations is what motivates Aristotle. What validates the claims he makes is their success in explaining its operations.[...] In contrast to Aristotle, the claims by Genesis and the rest of the Scriptures of ancient Israel do not spring from a desire to discover the principles of nature's operations, nor even to account for the existence of the universe. Belief in a Creator is not affirmed by the ancient Israelites because they desire to explain the world's existence and order. Its existence and order do not form the grounds for their belief in God. On the contrary, they believed in God because they believed God's self-revelation, first to Abraham, [...] and then to other patriarchs, such as Isaac and Jacob, and to the prophets. Their belief in the divine is a response to God's initiative, rather than the result of their investigations of nature's order and origin." (Italics original)
'Idolatry' is misguided epistemology.
This chapter emphasizes the foundation of Christian theology is in our understanding of the ontological difference between the world and God that must not be confused. "There is a distinction between God and the world which is more fundamental than any distinction between any two things which are both part of the world. However great the ontological difference may be between things that are part of the world, it is dwarfed in comparison to the ontological difference that exists between the Creator and creatures."
From this point, we learned to see 'idolatry' in a deeper way and why it is so condemned in Christianity. Idolatry is simply attributing wrong ontology due to misguided epistemology. It is the act of distorting the truth based on false knowledge. In other words, one commits idolatry when he/she gives a wrong status of existence to things or beings. And very often, we are tempted to distort God with our epistemology.
"[Concepts] by which we understand various kinds of things within the world do not enable us to comprehend God because God does not fall under any classification or genus within which we place the various beings of which the world consists. [...] Divine perfection is not according to some notion of perfection which we gain by comparing created beings with each other. Rather we understand that God is perfect (complete and full) because God created the world freely, and we can understand that even though we do not comprehend the perfection of divine being." (Italics original)
Sin and natural theology.
We asked if sin had distorted our mind to the extend that we would not be able to see the Creator without special help from God? Can general revelation (1) lead people to the acknowledgment of the creator God and (2) by that making better humans?
Maricel shared with us her interesting exposure to a tribal group in the Philippines. In her first visit to them, the tribe has not been taught about Christianity. What was surprising to Maricel was the fact that these tribal people already possessed an idea of a cosmic creator. And based on that belief, they were harmonious with the environment and treated their surrounding and everyone with care and respect.
However, Maricel was rather upset when she visited the tribe again. This time, the tribe has been taught about Christianity. Some of them have even converted into the faith. To Maricel's horror, the converts were not as harmonious with the environment as they used to be. Due to the teaching that the creation is God's gift in human's disposal, the converts had exploited the surrounding for their selfish gain. And the conversion has also implanted antagonism among the tribal people.
In this case, general revelation can lead people to the acknowledgment of the creator God but not so in making better humans. To think deeper into it, is not the right acknowledgment of God leads to being better humans? Is Matthew 7.15-20 relevant here? Can we judge the rightness of an acknowledgement of God by the fruits of that acknowledgement?
Andreas suggested that the converts' action is motivated by the wrong interpretation of the 'Cultural Mandate' passages in Genesis 1.28. This shows the important link between our belief and our action. What we believe affects how we relate and react. To cite Richard M. Weaver, "Ideas have consequences."
Of course those who see nothing wrong in the converts' exploitation of the natural world and antagonism against their neighbor would cite Matthew 10.34 as a justification.
Katherine shared that in the context of urban city, it seems that special revelation is more needed as there is nothing around us that immediately appears as natural to us, and so make it hard for us to appreciate general revelation.
When we look around us, we see human constructs in the form of building, garden, mechanical vehicle, artificial food and drink, chemical cosmetic, fiber clothing, and etc. In such a context, it is not easy for us to see how the sky, the rain, the soil and our sustenance are connected. Whatever that grows naturally around us are usually undesirable pest and fungus. City life is more or less a plastic existence.
A plastic world places more urgency on special revelation. And the only thing or being that appears more revelatory is the embodied message: that is us, the Christians. The burden to be an authentic living message is more necessary in a context surrounded by artificial construction.
In closing: Revisiting the relationship between philosophy and theology:
At the end of the session, we discussed about the models that relate the two disciplines. We came up with four.
Model one: Philosophy and theology relates to each other like a Vern Diagram. There are areas where both disciplines intersect and share something in common.
Model two: Philosophy is the subset of theology. All philosophical questions can best be understood through theology. And in some occasions, answered by theology.
Model three: Theology is the subset of philosophy. All theological questions originated from philosophical inquiry and therefore theology began from within philosophy.
Model four: Philosophy and theology do not relate with each other. Both disciplines ask different questions and provide different answers.
We had a great time examining and critiquing each model. And at the end of the day, we do not have a conclusion which model provides the definite description of this troubling relationship. At best, we can only see them in context. That means each model is truest when it is in the context of inquiry that is most relevant to it.
Diogenes Allen is currently Stuart Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary. He wrote this book in the early 1980s to help students to understand the philosophical background of Christian theology. Since its publication, the book has aided many students in understanding the history of Christian thoughts. (Eric Springsted, 'Philosopher In Service Of The Church: Diogenes Allen retires after 35 years at PTS,' in Inspire, Summer/Fall 2002, volume 7, no. 1.)
Christian and non-Christian thinking:
Our session began by each of us sharing what do we understand by the term 'philosophy'?
Andreas shared that philosophy is the subject that tries to make sense of life. Jonah and Wei Yi said that whenever they hear the word 'philosophy', they would think of 'metaphysics'.
Katherine has the impression that philosophy probes deep into life, asking questions about the origin and meaning of it. Mui Kiang indicated that philosophy helps us to engage, clarify, and respond critically in our communication with people.
Others said that it a force that lies behind everything, for instance in all the fiction and non-fiction books that we read (Andreas added that it includes cook books and books on gardening). As long as we probe deeper, we would find philosophy.
The general consensus that I gathered from the group was the understanding that philosophy is that which helps us to approach life deeper, to learn about and examine it more consciously.
Then we proceeded by the reading of two extracts of ancient poems:
[Minos said to Zeus]
"They fashioned a tomb for you, O holy and high one,
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But you are not dead: You live and abide forever;
For in you we live and move and have our being."
(Extract from Cretica, a poem by Cretan philosopher and religious prophet Epimenides of Knossos)
"Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken;
For every street, every marketplace is full of Zeus;
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.;
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus;
For we are indeed his offspring..."
(Extract from Phaenomena), a poet by Greek philosopher and doctor Aratus)
Then followed by a reading from Acts 17.24 to 28:
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’"
And finally, we read from apostle Paul's letter to Titus (1.12-13):
"One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith..."
What are we seeing here? Was Paul's theology shaped by Greek philosophy and theology, or was he using relevant non-Christian thoughts to explain Christian theology according to his audience?
Allen states that Christian theology's two main sources are the Bible and Hellenistic culture, especially Greek philosophy. Acts 17.28 is an example where Christian theology has an identical idea with that of Greek theology. Hence we see that there are identical ideas between Christian's and non-Christian's thoughts.
Critic of Christianity often charges that Christian theology is actually derived and shaped by non-Christian theology. Whether this is correct is unanswerable. We simply have no way to verify that. The fact that Paul quoted from non-Christian ideas does not say anything more than the fact that he quoted them. It could very well be that Paul already had those conviction and his employment of them were for mere missiological purposes.
Nonetheless what is certain is that there are areas where Christian thoughts and non-Christian ones converged. Therefore the distinctiveness of Christian thinking can be expected from non-Christians.
Jonah illustrated this point with us with a Chinese proverb, "A damaged clock still gets the time right twice a day." Non-Christian thoughts still have something Christian within them.
Ontology and epistemology:
Allen pointed out the two fundamental ways that we can use to discern and compare between Christian and non-Christian ideas.
The first way is 'ontology'. Basically, ontology is the status of a thing in reality. For eg. I am a real person while Gandalf from the book 'Lord of the Ring' is a fictional person. We are ontologically different. We do not share identical status in reality.
Second way is 'epistemology'. It is a "study of the kinds of ground on which we make claims and which studies the relationship between different grounds." This concerns the source of our knowledge, our capability to know and verifiability of what we know.
In the chapter, Allen points out that the foundation of Christian theology is the ontology of the world as God's creation. "The Genesis stories of creation make it clear that the world has a beginning. Because it has a beginning, it is not eternal. This means it is not ultimate. God, its Maker, who is without beginning or end, is ultimate. This is utterly different from Aristotle's view. For him the universe had no beginning. It has always existed and always will exist. [...] Its existence is inferred from the motions we observe on earth and in the heavens." (Italic original)
Our epistemic ground (that is our source for this knowledge about the ontology of the world as God's creation) is in God's own initiative to reveal it to us.
Allen wrote, "The grounds for [Aristotle's claim rest on] the epistemological principle: we assert only what must be asserted to account for the operations of the world. A search for the principles of the world's operations is what motivates Aristotle. What validates the claims he makes is their success in explaining its operations.[...] In contrast to Aristotle, the claims by Genesis and the rest of the Scriptures of ancient Israel do not spring from a desire to discover the principles of nature's operations, nor even to account for the existence of the universe. Belief in a Creator is not affirmed by the ancient Israelites because they desire to explain the world's existence and order. Its existence and order do not form the grounds for their belief in God. On the contrary, they believed in God because they believed God's self-revelation, first to Abraham, [...] and then to other patriarchs, such as Isaac and Jacob, and to the prophets. Their belief in the divine is a response to God's initiative, rather than the result of their investigations of nature's order and origin." (Italics original)
'Idolatry' is misguided epistemology.
This chapter emphasizes the foundation of Christian theology is in our understanding of the ontological difference between the world and God that must not be confused. "There is a distinction between God and the world which is more fundamental than any distinction between any two things which are both part of the world. However great the ontological difference may be between things that are part of the world, it is dwarfed in comparison to the ontological difference that exists between the Creator and creatures."
From this point, we learned to see 'idolatry' in a deeper way and why it is so condemned in Christianity. Idolatry is simply attributing wrong ontology due to misguided epistemology. It is the act of distorting the truth based on false knowledge. In other words, one commits idolatry when he/she gives a wrong status of existence to things or beings. And very often, we are tempted to distort God with our epistemology.
"[Concepts] by which we understand various kinds of things within the world do not enable us to comprehend God because God does not fall under any classification or genus within which we place the various beings of which the world consists. [...] Divine perfection is not according to some notion of perfection which we gain by comparing created beings with each other. Rather we understand that God is perfect (complete and full) because God created the world freely, and we can understand that even though we do not comprehend the perfection of divine being." (Italics original)
Sin and natural theology.
We asked if sin had distorted our mind to the extend that we would not be able to see the Creator without special help from God? Can general revelation (1) lead people to the acknowledgment of the creator God and (2) by that making better humans?
Maricel shared with us her interesting exposure to a tribal group in the Philippines. In her first visit to them, the tribe has not been taught about Christianity. What was surprising to Maricel was the fact that these tribal people already possessed an idea of a cosmic creator. And based on that belief, they were harmonious with the environment and treated their surrounding and everyone with care and respect.
However, Maricel was rather upset when she visited the tribe again. This time, the tribe has been taught about Christianity. Some of them have even converted into the faith. To Maricel's horror, the converts were not as harmonious with the environment as they used to be. Due to the teaching that the creation is God's gift in human's disposal, the converts had exploited the surrounding for their selfish gain. And the conversion has also implanted antagonism among the tribal people.
In this case, general revelation can lead people to the acknowledgment of the creator God but not so in making better humans. To think deeper into it, is not the right acknowledgment of God leads to being better humans? Is Matthew 7.15-20 relevant here? Can we judge the rightness of an acknowledgement of God by the fruits of that acknowledgement?
Andreas suggested that the converts' action is motivated by the wrong interpretation of the 'Cultural Mandate' passages in Genesis 1.28. This shows the important link between our belief and our action. What we believe affects how we relate and react. To cite Richard M. Weaver, "Ideas have consequences."
Of course those who see nothing wrong in the converts' exploitation of the natural world and antagonism against their neighbor would cite Matthew 10.34 as a justification.
Katherine shared that in the context of urban city, it seems that special revelation is more needed as there is nothing around us that immediately appears as natural to us, and so make it hard for us to appreciate general revelation.
When we look around us, we see human constructs in the form of building, garden, mechanical vehicle, artificial food and drink, chemical cosmetic, fiber clothing, and etc. In such a context, it is not easy for us to see how the sky, the rain, the soil and our sustenance are connected. Whatever that grows naturally around us are usually undesirable pest and fungus. City life is more or less a plastic existence.
A plastic world places more urgency on special revelation. And the only thing or being that appears more revelatory is the embodied message: that is us, the Christians. The burden to be an authentic living message is more necessary in a context surrounded by artificial construction.
In closing: Revisiting the relationship between philosophy and theology:
At the end of the session, we discussed about the models that relate the two disciplines. We came up with four.
Model one: Philosophy and theology relates to each other like a Vern Diagram. There are areas where both disciplines intersect and share something in common.
Model two: Philosophy is the subset of theology. All philosophical questions can best be understood through theology. And in some occasions, answered by theology.
Model three: Theology is the subset of philosophy. All theological questions originated from philosophical inquiry and therefore theology began from within philosophy.
Model four: Philosophy and theology do not relate with each other. Both disciplines ask different questions and provide different answers.
We had a great time examining and critiquing each model. And at the end of the day, we do not have a conclusion which model provides the definite description of this troubling relationship. At best, we can only see them in context. That means each model is truest when it is in the context of inquiry that is most relevant to it.
RSS Feed