Theology starts with dogmas, philosophy begins with problems (tradition, scriptures)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

November 14, 2004

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/125583.htm?nl=1

Weekly Quote: Heschel on Theology & Philosophy

Theology starts with dogmas, philosophy begins with problems. Philosophy sees the problem first, theology has the answer in advance. We must not, however, disregard another important difference. Not only are the problems of philosophy not identical with the problems of religion; their status is not the same. Philosophy is, in a sense, a kind of thinking that has a beginning but no end. In it, the awareness of the problem outlives all solutions. Its answers are questions in disguise; every new answer giving rise to new questions. In religion, on the other hand, the mystery of the answer hovers over all questions.
- Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism (1955)

It's possible for some to confuse theology and philosophy, but the differences are as important as they are fundamental. Although no harsh critic of religion, Abraham Heschel offers a very insightful explanation here of the basic differences between theology and philosophy which, for many readers at least, leaves theology with the poorer end of the deal.

The differences described here by Heschel seem to boil down to that of attitude or methodology. In philosophy, the questions are commonly more important than the answers; indeed, even when it seems that we have arrived at answers, we also have arrived at new and perhaps more interesting questions that allow us to begin again. Philosophy is a quest or process that never ends and never needs to end.

Theology, on the other hand, typically starts out "knowing" the most basic answers (whether God exists, what God is like, what God has done, etc.). These are the dogmas of the religious tradition that theology is being done. At this point the purpose is not to arrive at answers but to better understand why these answers are true and what those answers are supposed to mean for us.

Given the premises of theology — that is to say, if we grant the truth of the answers a theology presupposes — then this methodology would make sense. Given the premises of philosophy, however, the theological attitude is completely backwards. It makes no sense to start out assuming the truths of basic points and merely seek to understand them. Granted, all philosophy assumes some things as truth, but the point of philosophy is to challenge assumptions and find new questions. The point of theology seems more to be to find ways to accept assumptions and put questions to rest.

Theology, at its heart, tends to be apologetical in nature. It is committed to the defense of particular religious positions. Theology relies upon religious scriptures (like the Bible or the Quran) as authoritative while such texts are simply objects of study in philosophy. It's not that theology isn't searching for any answers; rather, it's more that theology isn't searching for enough questions.

Would you agree with this article?

Bob

[Jayhawker Soule]

Very, very nice, particularly the Heschel quote. Thanks.

[xander-]

*Stands up and claps*
Very, very nice article. He puts it in a way people like me(nearly brainless) can understand. Especially the last line

It's not that theology isn't searching for any answers; rather, it's more that theology isn't searching for enough questions.

So yes i completely agree!

-Xander
P.S. Who wrote the article?

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by xander-

*Stands up and claps*
Very, very nice article. He puts it in a way people like me(nearly brainless) can understand. Especially the last line So yes i completely agree!

-Xander
P.S. Who wrote the article?

Austin Cline

[jewscout]

It's not that theology isn't searching for any answers; rather, it's more that theology isn't searching for enough questions.

The most valuable tool we have is "Why?"

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have a mild preference for "How?"

[Solly]

Doesn't this slightly forget how theology got here in the first place?

If one operates from a position that religion is a purely natural phenomenon, then it too is an answer to the questions of why and how. Why is the world the way it is, etc. Theology, on this basis, would be naive philosophy along the lines of just so stories. But some philosophies are little more than that, and themselves rarely find agreement across the board. They too can become theological in the way intimated here, in which the answer is given, now what is the question. One thinks of MarxistLeninism...
Perhaps the more appropriate question is what is the relationship between the two, and how should we use them. We can't all be Nietzsche, wandering on the mountians of thought. We have to settle down, and live, and thereby a philosophy becomes a theology in the boradest sense; the questions generate answers, and we live on the basis of them. that is what religion is about, that is why the ideas like Plato and Pythagoras were philosophy and theology at the same time.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Solly

If one operates from a position that religion is a purely natural phenomenon, then it too is an answer to the questions of why and how.

That is a a rather silly non sequitur. Psychosis, phobia, superstition, and camel dung are each natural phenomenon.

[Solly]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

That is a a rather silly non sequitur. Psychosis, phobia, superstition, and camel dung are each natural phenomenon.

I can see we are going to get on wonderfully. Was that a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters with adolescant sarcasm. I quite obviously meant, natural phenomenon as opposed to the theological understanding of something that happens involving a deity. By the same token philosophy is to be scorned as being on the same level as the items you mention.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

I would like to remind one of our recent posters and explain to the other that this section of meant for presentation of opinion and not to "slide" into a debate. In the discussion section, opinion is welcome - arguement is not.

It is also Religious Forums policy to avoid personal attacks. Ideas may be disputed in the Debate section but never the character of a participant.

Thank You!

Pah