The Problem of Religious Philosophy

[de Silentio]

This may be a throw away topic, but I was thinking today that a big problem with Religious Philosophy is that it must, at some point, rely on dogmattic truths.

Is the acceptance of dogmattic truths what seperates theology and philosophy? In the title of this Forum, it says "Theology uses documents, philosophy uses reason". I would argue that Theology must use reason in almost the exact same manner that philosophy does, given one major difference: the acceptance of premises that we cannot prove i.e. God exists, God does not Exist.

So I ask, is there a way to do theology without dogmattic premesis.

[Aristoddler]

Theology uses faith, not reason.

There is nothing reasonable about the concept that an omnipotent being could create the cosmos, atoms, and the platypus, while at the same time allow his "greatest" creation (mankind) go so far out of control.
So in that aspect, I disagree with you.
I also disagree that this is a throwaway topic. I think it's a good one.

However, I can not answer your question easily. I must sleep on it first, because it is one that requires deep thought as far as I'm concerned.

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

Theology uses faith, not reason.

There is nothing reasonable about the concept that an omnipotent being could create the cosmos, atoms, and the platypus, while at the same time allow his "greatest" creation (mankind) go so far out of control.
So in that aspect, I disagree with you.

See, I think that it must use both. Reason is no doubt used in theological discussions. But faith is also used, and that is more or less the point of this topic.

I used the term dogmatics instead of faith because I feel that 'faith truths' are often held by a person the same way dogmatic truths are, and to do theology, I think this must be the case.

To get down to the nitty gritty of my thoughts: What is the validity of theology or religious philosophy if it stems from dogmatically held premises?

I also disagree that this is a throwaway topic. I think it's a good one.

Thank You.

[Didymos Thomas]

Discussion of faith, in part, comprises theology. So, in that respect theology relies on faith.

Theology also relies on reason. Unless the theologian has reasoned himself to the conclusion that some aspect of his contemplation should be unreasonable, I imagine he would like to think his thoughts to be reasonable.

It also seems to be true that theology presupposes certain claims to be true. Catholic theology, for instance, makes a number of assumptions to arrive at the Trinity. But theology changes from cult to cult.

Theology is looking at some faith tradition as part of that tradition. Theologians use philosophy to examine their faith tradition, to question and test the various claims of the tradition. Theology is the philosophy of the faith.

So I do not think the acceptance of dogmatic truth is essential to theology, nor do I think this separates theology from philosophy. Theology and philosophy are often times the very same (evident in both eastern and western philosophy).

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

This may be a throw away topic, but I was thinking today that a big problem with Religious Philosophy is that it must, at some point, rely on dogmattic truths.

Is the acceptance of dogmattic truths what seperates theology and philosophy? In the title of this Forum, it says "Theology uses documents, philosophy uses reason". I would argue that Theology must use reason in almost the exact same manner that philosophy does, given one major difference: the acceptance of premises that we cannot prove i.e. God exists, God does not Exist.

So I ask, is there a way to do theology without dogmattic premesis.

I suppose that would depend on your standard of proof. What would you require to prove either that God did, or God did not exist? After all, there are some now who would hold that there is enough reason to think that it is unlikely that God exists. That, of course, is not "proof" with mathematical certainty, but, as I just asked, is mathematical certainty what you would require as your standard of proof? After all, we believe many things with confidence for which we do not have proof that amounts to certainty, don't we?

[boagie]

Hi all,

"So I ask, is there a way to do theology without dogmatical premesis."

So, I ask you, is there a way to do philosophy without honestly challenging the premesis in question?

dogmatically: Characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

dogmatically: In a narrow-minded dogmatic manner

and my own, dogmatical as in, an insult to reason.

[Aedes]

Everything we talk about, even in hard core science, very quickly requires evidence that we did not produce or collect ourselves. So we need to have some degree of faith in the fidelity of the science we cite. So from a rhetorical (and epistemological) perspective we're always sublimating faith-based beliefs, even in the most rational of discussions.

With religion, though, we add in people's emotional attachments, the implications for morals and ultimate truths, and of course fallacies like appeal to authority (i.e. invoking textual sources as sacred), which make it an extremely sensitive hot-button topic.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Everything we talk about, even in hard core science, very quickly requires evidence that we did not produce or collect ourselves. So we need to have some degree of faith in the fidelity of the science we cite. So from a rhetorical (and epistemological) perspective we're always sublimating faith-based beliefs, even in the most rational of discussions.

With religion, though, we add in people's emotional attachments, the implications for morals and ultimate truths, and of course fallacies like appeal to authority (i.e. invoking textual sources as sacred), which make it an extremely sensitive hot-button topic.

Aedes,

That is a pretty good summation, though it is somewhat manipulative in its desire to place science, logic and reason on the same level as pretense, wishful thinking and deceit. It is true that our suspension of disbelief in much of what becomes common knowledge is a matter of convinence, but if at anytime it is challenged, no one is terribly surprised, no one is accused of having no character. The question to, still remains, can one do philosophy without the ability to challenge dogmatic premises, to challenge premises in general. People can attempt to do a soft-shoe around this question, but it will return time and time again, ignorance is no match for truth in the long-run.

"With religion, though, we add in people's emotional attachments, the implications for morals and ultimate truths, and of course fallacies like appeal to authority (i.e. invoking textual sources as sacred), which make it an extremely sensitive hot-button topic." quote Aedes

I agree for the most part, yet if you suggest to the religious that faith and its traditions of belief are emotionally grounded, ones emotions the foundation upon which this structure rests---once again they are offended. So, according to many religious people, their faith, their belief is rational, even though these same people will tell you that in order to reach belief, one must leave reason behind--------say good night Gracie!! This is an unfair imposition upon reasonable thinking, there is no ability here on the part of believers to be honest. Religious philosophy should be considered an oxymoron= [Conjoining contradictory terms].

[Aedes]

I don't place science and reason on the same level as witchcraft. There IS a traceable chain of evidence in science, for instance. But at the level of the individual discussion, many truths need to be assumed without direct knowledge or evidence, even in science. I have to trust that the research underlying my medical practice is accurate, for instance, even though my experience is all anecdotal and I did not generate any of the primary data.

As for emotions -- if I challenge you as to how you KNOW that cell membranes are composed of phospholipids (for instance), that will not evoke the same reaction as if I challenged someone as to how they KNOW that Jesus was the son of God (for instance).

In other words, the stakes are higher for religious belief -- people are more willing to live or die (rhetorically) on a point made out of faith if it's religious -- whereas with science and logic, I'd imagine most people would be content to shrug and admit lack of knowledge.

[de Silentio]

But at the level of the individual discussion, many truths need to be assumed without direct knowledge or evidence, even in science.

It's true that truth have to assumed in both science and theology, but there seems to be a definite qualitative difference between the two types of truths that we assume. Science seems to have the weight of evidence behind it, while faith does not. I think I can say the same for philosophy, especially philosophy after Kant, with his aim to eradicate knowledge claims that are beyond human reason. Science and philosophy seem within this realm of possible human knowledge, while religion does not.