Orthodoxy and Philosophy

First of all, welcome to TAW

Your question is an interesting one. If you're asking whether Orthodoxy uses philosophy to exegize it's Theology the answer is yes. Look to The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky for a great example of this. As it comes to apologetics and evangelism, however, the Orthodox take quite a different approach.

The idea of using philosophy to prove God's existence is one that is foreign to Orthodoxy. God is real because He has shown Himself as real, ie revealed it to us. We have not come to know God through intellectual ascent but from Divine revelation from Him. The Ethos of the church is one so engrained in the Revelation of these Truths that asking one to prove it would be strange indeed. The only reason we believe these things is because they happened and were experienced, not because we reasoned our way to it. As a matter of fact it would be impossible to fully explain God, because of the apophatic nature Orthodox Theology takes. Now, that's not to say that we can't use philosophy to help reinforce our point, but it is never the main support for our beliefs, merely an auxiliary tool if you will.

As for using science, etc to prove or disprove God is one that isn't a great concern for Orthodoxy. Many Fathers believed in the 7 day creation, others do not. It does not matter so much to us, what does matter is that the creation story is the Truth. These things are not contingent on our salvation and therefore are not heavily emphasized or dogmatized.

Please correct me if I have construed anything the Holy Church teaches. This has been my experience from the time I have inquired until now about the Church's Ethos. I too was involved in apologetics once in the way Moreland specifically was (I actually own one of his books). When someone tells us to justify ourselves through philosophy, they're kind of missing the point.

I'll finish this with a story I heard once:
there was a man in a certain town known for being an atheist. He was quite fanatical in his atheism and tried to argue as much as he could about the foolishness of believing in God. One day he was walking along the beach and he saw a monk walking the opposite way. The man ran up furiously to him and said "Monk, I demand you tell me why you believe in God!", the monk simply looked up at the man, looked down and gently said "no". Then he walked off.

I suppose in Orthodoxy, the philosophy being orthodox should be God-centered and focused on understanding Christ. The rest of the humanistic and secular academic philosophies should be discarded.

Funny how when I first became orthodox I assumed that because it is greek it would be philosophical. Talk about making stuff up on my part. I am relieved that it is entirely faith based, no rationalization, because I'm terrible at rationalizing!

Until your post I have not heard of Richard Swinburn but I am glad to have found out fro it, thank you. I found an interesting article here http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SwinburnDesign.php & hope to read it in depth. I am under time constraints at work & unable to discuss in depth.

Does Swinburn have an association w/ former physicist & now Anglican priest John Polkinghorn?

I know I haven't been orthodox long enough to give you a full opinion but I think it goes against the grain of the tradition to explain anything rationally. If you still want philosophy I would IMO of course study the concept of faith rather than the arguments in favor of what you believe in. If you can make faith itself seem rational you might give a rational defense of christianity, especially orthodoxy vs. western christianity (though be vulnerable when it comes to other religions). I was initially scared and still am a bit to throw out scientific reasoning and rationalization to explain what I believe in but I have realized that with the help of the lord of course, I can believe without any rational basis for it. I think if you work out faith or explain it better at least you'll do all of us a favor. Not that we need to justify ourselves. You might just lose academic credibility though... Sorry you had to end up in philosophy like that - orthodox never liked philosophy. It seems they hold the nous in much higher regard than the logos- reason must be a slave rather than the boss from what I gather.

Remember that if your life always exhibits a striving for love and holiness, you'll always be presenting a de facto undefeatable argument.

Theophilus7 said:

Thank you for your post.

I am actually a Physics student, rather than a philosopher, but I do study philosophy in my spare time, have occasionally given talks on apologetics, and know quite a few atheists, who I've enjoyed sparring with from time to time.

I must confess I'd be disappointed if your view on the relationship between faith and reason, theology and philosophy, is really representative of Orthodox opinion. It seems to me that the God who made our minds would not want us to switch them off when it comes to thinking about Him, or embrace any beliefs without using the cognitive equipment that He created. Thinking carefully and rationally seems to me to be a way of glorifying God, and a true religion is surely one which embraces - and gives expression to - our whole humanity.

But I suspect there may be more of a spectrum of opinion on these sorts of questions, as there is among evangelicals, perhaps (?)

Click to expand...

Does it seem reasonable to you that aside from the Christian belief that God is creator that there need not be any conflict with operational science especially in relation to the law of conservation of energy & matter in physics? It seems dishonest of atheists to use science to not just disbelieve in God but outright discredit belief in God. Were not great scientists like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton etc. Christians? Within Orthodoxy, does not St. Gregory Palamas' reaization of divine uncreated energy find common ground with the law of conservation?

Lukaris said:

Does it seem reasonable to you that aside from the Christian belief that God is creator that there need not be any conflict with operational science especially in relation to the law of conservation of energy & matter in physics? It seems dishonest of atheists to use science to not just disbelieve in God but outright discredit belief in God. Were not great scientists like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton etc. Christians? Within Orthodoxy, does not St. Gregory Palamas' reaization of divine uncreated energy find common ground with the law of conservation?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry lukaris for hijacking your post that you meant for Theophilus7, but I am new to the religion and learning. I just looked up this uncreated grace concept and true, it does not conflict with the law of conservation. The problem is it is unscientific. If science tried to explain it it would fail. It goes with the trinity, the orthodox christology and numerous other concepts in orthodoxy. I have a question for you. Am I right in saying that rational thought is simply inadequate for explaining much of the orthodox view of theology? I agree there is no conflict with science in many aspects of it, because science is entirely different from it, not because it is scientific but isn't it the experience of the orthodox church that rational exploration of the uncreated leads to heresy?

Again, sorry to hijack your post.

maybenotcrazy said:

I have a question for you. Am I right in saying that rational thought is simply inadequate for explaining much of the orthodox view of theology? I agree there is no conflict with science in many aspects of it, because science is entirely different from it, not because it is scientific but isn't it the experience of the orthodox church that rational exploration of the uncreated leads to heresy?

Click to expand...

I'm not Lukaris but maybe I can contribute.

I would say yes to your first question, but only in a certain sense. The revelation of God transcends science, it is on a different plane. Not to say the two are mutually exclusive (who do you think set up the laws of physics?) but science is not the way to "prove" God. We don't prove God, He reveals Himself to us.

To your second question I would also say yes. If you want a systematic Christian Theology that lines everything out, look to the Catholics and Aquinas. God is ineffable in His essence and therefore is supreme mystery. The Orthodox take the Apophatic road when talking about God, that is, using negative language to try and exegize this mystery, however poorly. This is, in the end, used to help stamp out heresy.

I respect Barky's and Maybe's posts & do not perceive I was being hi or carjacked . Wishing I was more scientifically literate, I will try to explain that I do not think Theophilus (who is scientifically literate & may I not presume to speak for him) or I are seeking to prove God by science or endorse Western rationalism. Western Christianity must be cautiously approached but the Christian faith of great scientists must be respected and even carefully utilized to counter militant atheism (not the passive variety) and theologically complete understanding of essence & energies as understood by St. Gregory Palamas (per the Holy Spirit) can only enhance science according to the will and glory of God.

Just for what it's worth...
I converted to Orthodoxy years ago, and subsequently did a degree in Philosophy and Ethics.
People (some Orthodox, some not) would ask me how I coped with the tension of studying Philosophy and having an Orthodox faith. I didn't know how to answer them, because I didn't share their premise.

If you need examples of Orthodox who are philosophers, St Justin Martyr is the obvious, along with most educated people in Constantinople (including some or all of the Cappadocian Fathers), St Catherine of Alexandria...
And that's not even considering that the word 'logos' was a philosophical concept that was appropriated (and fulfilled) by St John.

Constantine Cavarnos does a wonderful work on this subject - 'Orthodoxy and Philosophy' - which basically talks about the various Fathers of the Church who were philosophers or used philosophy to explain concepts, etc.

Hope this helps.

You guys are having a good discussion which I don't mean to interrupt. But if you are more concerned with having a defense for faith and are not as much pulled to it by heart, then you might want to start with some soul searching. The philosophy can and will come later, in volumes larger than anyone may be able to work with, but the root is not in defense but in an intangible calling to a higher life.

That's true for many people, but not true for all. Sometimes the logical defence is necessary in order to take the pull seriously.

Need I chuck out a 'become all things to all, that by all means some might be saved' paraphrase?

I see your point... but hopefully you see mine. The logical defense is good to have, but in my opinion you should do what you feel to be right and look for the defense after the fact.

It is interesting that Dr. Plantinga was brought up earlier in this discussion. I actually share his epistomology and consider it to be rather Orthodox at heart. The "sensus divinitatus" which he uses for his hypothetical justification of belief is borrowed from Thomas Aquinas, who in turn got it from the Greek fathers of the church. They called it the "nous" (sometimes translated as heart, eye of the heart, mind, or intelectus).

The nous, in this thought, is distinct from the thoughts (the cognitive ideas and emotions we produce in response to sensory input from the world), and is, rather, the faculty by which we are to directly experience and know the pre-eternal God. Damaged / clouded by sin, we are unable to know God and become limited to our physical ('natural' or 'fleshly') self; this subjective isolation prevents us from having real knowledge / wisdom and so feeds sin again in a kind of loop.

The repairing of the nous in repentance and baptism, made possible by the grace of God through Christ our Lord, is the beginning of wisdom - it breaks the cycle of sin and darkness and instead gives us a way out of madness. It gives us a means of purification in order that we may come to know God directly, in a way that is totally not publically available, yet totally reasonible (in the Plantingan sense).

I rather like Dr. Plantinga's epistomology; I find it remarkably patristic in its anti-foundationalist, anti-rationalist, anti-relativist tendencies. "Warranted Christian Belief" and "God, Freedom, and Evil" remain two of my favorite books.

Forgive me,
Macarius