Distinction Between Philosophy and Theology?

[Eudaimonist]

Philosophers are willing to question anything.

Theologians are willing to question anything... except for the existence of God.

Compare Socrates with Aquinas and you will see the distinction.

The central fact in the mind of a philosopher is the philosopher's own ability to reason and to see issues from different angles. The central fact in the mind of a theologian is God's existence, which one then defends and proceeds from to make other conclusions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Philosophers are willing to question anything.

Theologians are willing to question anything... except for the existence of God.

Compare Socrates with Aquinas and you will see the distinction.

The central fact in the mind of a philosopher is the philosopher's own ability to reason and to see issues from different angles. The central fact in the mind of a theologian is God's existence, which one then defends and proceeds from to make other conclusions.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I am a theologian in the more broad sense of the term i.e. one who specializes in and is a student of theology.

When I came across the post supplied above, my interest was piqued, and with all humility I beseech you to bear with me as I share with you my take on what you have written.

You say that theologians are willing to question anything except for the existence of God.

To be charitable, I take this to be in general and that you are not speaking of every single theologian. For I am a Christian theologian and I personally do sometimes question whether or not my views on the existence of God are true. In addition to this there are some other things that I do not question at all. For example, I do not question my existence, nor do I question the veridicality of my five senses. Now that I sit and stare out my window this morning, I can think of literally dozens of things I do not question, but take to be axiomatic.

The last sentence you wrote I disagree with as well. Many theologians may indeed start with God and then go from there. I do not. I start with the fact that "I" exist. From that I seek to understand why and how "I" exist. My mind is one that looks at what is and asks: "How", "Why" is there something i.e myself, rather than no thing. In my mind, by an exercise of the will, I go back, back, back till I come to the conclusion that it all must have began with that which never began to exist. My reasoning is that I believe that an actual infinite number of past moments cannot be traversed.

I respectfully hope you can see where I am coming from.

Sincerely, Jeremy.

 

[quatona]

I am a theologian in the more broad sense of the term i.e. one who specializes in and is a student of theology.

When I came across the post supplied above, my interest was piqued, and with all humility I beseech you to bear with me as I share with you my take on what you have written.

You say that theologians are willing to question anything except for the existence of God.

To be charitable, I take this to be in general and that you are not speaking of every single theologian. For I am a Christian theologian and I personally do sometimes question whether or not my views on the existence of God are true. In addition to this there are some other things that I do not question at all. For example, I do not question my existence, nor do I question the veridicality of my five senses. Now that I sit and stare out my window this morning, I can think of literally dozens of things I do not question, but take to be axiomatic.

The last sentence you wrote I disagree with as well. Many theologians may indeed start with God and then go from there. I do not. I start with the fact that "I" exist. From that I seek to understand why and how "I" exist. My mind is one that looks at what is and asks: "How", "Why" is there something i.e myself, rather than no thing. In my mind, by an exercise of the will, I go back, back, back till I come to the conclusion that it all must have began with that which never began to exist. My reasoning is that I believe that an actual infinite number of past moments cannot be traversed.

I respectfully hope you can see where I am coming from.

Sincerely, Jeremy.

I think Mark´s answer would have been more accurate had he written "philosophy" instead of "philosophers" and "theology" instead of "theologians".
IOW even an atheist can study and practice theology, but theology works from the premise that there is a God.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I think Mark´s answer would have been more accurate had he written "philosophy" instead of "philosophers" and "theology" instead of "theologians".
IOW even an atheist can study and practice theology, but theology works from the premise that there is a God.

I agree quatona!

Good observations!

 

[Eudaimonist]

For I am a Christian theologian and I personally do sometimes question whether or not my views on the existence of God are true.

While doing that, you function more as a philosopher than as a theologian.

(I can accept quatona's point regarding my word choice. Perhaps the change of words will help you to understand what I mean.)

In addition to this there are some other things that I do not question at all. For example, I do not question my existence, nor do I question the veridicality of my five senses.

I don't either, but philosophers may do so, and to do so is philosophical even if it is not required to make one a philosopher.

The last sentence you wrote I disagree with as well. Many theologians may indeed start with God and then go from there. I do not. I start with the fact that "I" exist. From that I seek to understand why and how "I" exist.

That's great, but to the extent that you do this you aren't engaging in theology. You are engaging in philosophy.

I respectfully hope you can see where I am coming from.

Yes, I think that I do. Thanks!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ken-1122]

I would say Philosophy and Theology are polar opposites; philosophy is about questions that can never be answered, and theology is about answers that can never be questioned.

Ken

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I would say Philosophy and Theology are polar opposites; philosophy is about questions that can never be answered, and theology is about answers that can never be questioned.

Ken

I disagree. There are questions in philosophy that I believe can be answered and there are "answers" in theology that I question.

But I do understand what you are saying, I just happen to respectfully disagree.

 

[Abenign1]

Theology is philosophy about God.

However Theeology is about what GOD says about himself.

 

[variant]

However Theeology is about what GOD says about himself.

That should be a pretty short subject.

 

[bhsmte]

However Theeology is about what GOD says about himself.

What is the source of what God says about himself?

And, how credible is that source?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

What is the source of what God says about himself?

And, how credible is that source?

Christian Theology uses as its primary source for God's self-revelation, the compilation of books and letters known as the Old Testament and the compilation of ancient biographies and epistles known as the New Testament.

With regards to the credibility of the aforementioned, I personally, after much research into said topic, am persuaded that they are as credible, if not more credible than any other ancient texts we have at our disposal. Of course people have varying views on the credibility of said texts, so it really depends on who you ask.

 

[variant]

I personally, after much research into said topic, am persuaded that they are as credible, if not more credible than any other ancient texts we have at our disposal. Of course people have varying views on the credibility of said texts, so it really depends on who you ask.

Yes, of course the most credible texts are the ones being claimed to be the words of God almighty.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Yes, of course the most credible texts are the ones being claimed to be the words of God almighty.

I miss your point.

 

[variant]

I miss your point.

I find it hilarious that you can put so much credulity into what are now ancient documents claiming to be divinely inspired.

It would be a very hard point to prove if you gave me a document written yesterday.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I find it hilarious that you can put so much credulity into what are now ancient documents claiming to be divinely inspired.

It would be a very hard point to prove if you gave me a document written yesterday.

I do not think a document is unreliable just because it has been around for a long time.

1. If a document was written many years ago then it is unreliable.

2. The New Testament documents were written many years ago

3. Therefore, the New Testament documents are unreliable


I do not think premise 1 is true. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the plausibility of premise 1.

Maybe you have an argument that would persuade?

 

[variant]

I do not think a document is unreliable just because it has been around for a long time.

1. If a document was written many years ago then it is unreliable.

2. The New Testament documents were written many years ago

3. Therefore, the New Testament documents are unreliable


I do not think premise 1 is true. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the plausibility of premise 1.

Maybe you have an argument that would persuade?

Premise 1 is not mine, I am simply under the impression that age doesn't make history clearer or more reliable it makes it more difficult.

So, I'm just trying to acquaint you with the facts.

It is simply harder to show the reliability of documents of that age, because much of the corroborating documentation/evidence would be missing or lost, and second it is fairly impossible to show any document to be God's words given any age.

Paradoxically a new document that said it was God inspired would be under much heavier scrutiny and likely to be treated with incredulity by the likes of you.

More paradoxically the main problem with more current documented source material would be that there would be a lot of context for the humans who wrote it and what their intentions were.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Premise 1 is not mine, I am simply under the impression that age doesn't make history clearer or more reliable it makes it more difficult.

Why does something's age necessarily make it more difficult to ascertain its reliability?

So, I'm just trying to acquaint you with the facts.

Which are?

It is simply harder to show the reliability of documents of that age, because much of the corroborating documentation/evidence would be missing or lost,

You mean to say, in the event that much of the corroborating documentation/evidence is missing or lost.

Just because an account is old does not necessarily mean that corroborating evidence for said account is missing or lost. An account could be very old and have old corroborating evidence.

Nor does corroborating documentation/evidence necessarily have to be as old as the document(s) they corroborate.

and second it is fairly impossible to show any document to be God's words given any age.

Why?

Paradoxically a new document that said it was God inspired would be under much heavier scrutiny and likely to be treated with incredulity by the likes of you.

You err in presuming sir. I would treat a new document that claimed to to be inspired the same way I treat any text.

More paradoxically the main problem with more current documented source material would be that there would be a lot of context for the humans who wrote it and what their intentions were.

I do not even understand your point. Maybe you could expound?

 

[variant]

Why does something's age necessarily make it more difficult to ascertain its reliability?

Yes the context that helps corroborate history will invariably be removed more from older documents over time.

You mean to say, in the event that much of the corroborating documentation/evidence is missing or lost.

Just because an account is old does not necessarily mean that corroborating evidence for said account is missing or lost. An account could be very old and have old corroborating evidence.

Nor does corroborating documentation/evidence necessarily have to be as old as the document(s) they corroborate.

No I mean to say that this process happens quite naturally over time. Not only that but there are fewer historians in the first place as you go back, and the historians themselves are often less credible.

Why?

Because it is hard to get God to tell us which texts are genuine.

You err in presuming sir. I would treat a new document that claimed to to be inspired the same way I treat any text.

I don't believe this to be the case based upon your responses so far. If you wish to challenge such an idea give me five reasons why you feel that the texts of Mormonism are invalid. Perhaps such an exercise would help you understand the next statements which seem to have gone over your head.

I do not even understand your point. Maybe you could expound?

That much is evident, but I have little hope for you so no, I don't care to explain it to you further, I think my target audience is already reached.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Yes the context that helps corroborate history will invariably be removed more from older documents over time.

That is not what I asked.

I asked:

Why does something's age necessarily make it more difficult to ascertain its reliability?

You seem to be under the impression that a historical account's context being old necessarily excludes it from being reliable. But clearly historiographical methodology makes use of a variety of different means in determining the reliability of an account, not just its context or age of said context. Having a recent context is not a necessary condition for determining an account's reliability, it is a sufficient condition. In the event that a historical document is old i.e. the New Testament writings, historians are able to offset any potential diminishment of reliability due to the age of the text by looking at other indicators of reliability. If these other indicators of reliability offset the potential diminishment due to the age of the context, then the account is deemed reliable by virtue of the overriding strength of the various other indicators of reliability utilized in the process.

No I mean to say that this process happens quite naturally over time. Not only that but there are fewer historians in the first place as you go back, and the historians themselves are often less credible.

Bringing up the number of historians is pertinent only if multiple attestation is a necessary condition. But once again there are a variety of different indicators of reliability historiographers make use of. Any lack of attestation is often offset by the strength of other indicators of reliability. So this is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition and that is if I grant that there are fewer historians as you suggest.

As far as historians being less credible, this seems to me to be something that would need to be substantiated.

Because it is hard to get God to tell us which texts are genuine.

Why do you say this?

I don't believe this to be the case based upon your responses so far. If you wish to challenge such an idea give me five reasons why you feel that the texts of Mormonism are invalid. Perhaps such an exercise would help you understand the next statements which seem to have gone over your head.

I will.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is the philosophy forum. What are you doing dragging facts in? That'll turn this into a scientific discussion with actual answers rather than endless semantic nitpicking, opinions and posturing.

Philosophers are people that won't take common sense for an answer!