Catholic Champion
Because the Truth is a matter of life and death.
Bad
Philosophy And The Divorce of Faith and Reason.
Written By: C.T. Mallek 2007
The bad metaphysics of modern philosophers such as Descartes, Kant, and Hume affects the divorce between faith and science on a broad level simply in that it replaces an open Aristotelian metaphysical foundation with a closed mechanistic metaphysical foundation. By replacing the Aristotelian metaphysical foundation with a mechanistic foundation, philosophers—to remain consistent in this kind of “closed system”—had no room for a presupposed first mover as a starting point. Thus, faith and science were thought of as existing in separate spheres, one of which had little to do with the understanding of the other. Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Faith and Reason, not only addresses the fallacious assertions of these modern philosophers, but offers a remedy by demonstrating the truth of the Aristotelian or Tomistic worldview, showing that faith and science are by no means contrary to one another, but that it’s essential for the progression of humanity—of any kind—that faith and science (or reason) be used together.
While Aristotle pointed out the importance of looking at the whole of something before looking at it’s parts, the mechanist stresses the importance of observing the parts of a thing rather than the whole. Aristotle believed that once the whole is understood, an understanding of its parts will eventually also be understood. The metaphysics of Descartes, Kant, and Hume, in a sense, start opposite of where Aristotelian metaphysics start. Descartes, widely regarded as the father of modern philosophy—skeptical about claims to knowledge, trusted reason while distrusting the idea of empiricism. After dispensing with everything “not yet proven”—needing some kind of presupposition to establish a first principle—Descartes came up with the well known and fallacious concept, “I think therefore I am”; thus ultimately leading to a philosophy that separated or divided reality into separate spheres, creating a kind of dualistic worldview, contrary to the predominantly Aristotelian worldview of the medieval scholastics. Descartes set out to establish a rational universal science to take the place of scholastic metaphysics; ultimately establishing the idea that, as Benedict Ashley O.P. puts it, “what we are most certain of is not the external "objective" world of the senses but our own introspective knowledge of our thoughts as self-conscious and free "subjects." Descartes’ philosophical position, being partially mechanistic, helped open the doors for a whole mechanistic worldview; a worldview contrary to the teleological understanding of nature as espoused by Aristotle. The machinists viewed the world in a kind of “closed system” from the bottom up as opposed to from the top down, leaving out the presupposition of there being a creator as first cause. Benedict Ashley puts it this way:
This uncritical mechanistic view of the foundations of natural science has ever since left modern science open to the confusions of the extreme epistemologies of idealism and empiricism and placed science in opposition to belief in God as spiritual first cause of physical reality.2
Contrary to the popular belief that modernism liberated science from the shackles of religion, this “bottom up” model, led science down a path of perpetual confusion. Avery Dulles writes, “Faith assists reason by extending reason’s sphere into the realm of supernatural mysteries and by delivering reason from errors, thanks to the surer light of revelation.”3
The problem escalated with David Hume who rejected Descartes dualistic worldview, taking things further into the realms of confusion by denying the human capacity to really know anything at all. To Hume, impressions and ideas are the only things that really exist. Hume argued that there is no external reality at all but just internal perceptions of such realities. So in essence, Hume denied the already fallacious idea of being able to know God simply, and only, on dogmatic terms. William Wallace writes, “The great genius of Immanuel Kant was to transcend the Enlightenment division and renew the main philosophical task of integrating experience and reason.”4 Immanuel Kant, originally a rationalist, attempted to find common ground between the two philosophies; however, ultimately burying the truth just that much further under the mound of misunderstanding by continuing to hold to a certain subjective understanding of things. Thus, both Hume and Kant reinforced the separation of faith and science, and moreover the idea that human intelligence really can’t know anything. This brought about, as Ashley puts it, a "hermeneutic of suspicion that undermines all trust and claims one opinion is as good as another.”5
John Paul the II, in defense of both human reason and faith, wrote the Encyclical Fides et Ratio. In Fides et Ratio, John Paul II addresses the situation brought about by years of poor philosophy, defending reason and the power of human intelligence while demonstrating how reason and faith work together, not in separate spheres as some of the earlier philosophers taught. John Paul II points out how the divorce between faith and reason has led to a “crisis of meaning” in culture. That years of bad philosophy has led modern man to question whether or not “meaning” is even worth searching for. John Paul II points out the importance of viewing the world through a Thomistic based lens; and further, that both faith and science suffer when viewed through the prism of bad philosophy. John Paul II writes, “ … Therefore, reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way …There is thus no reason for competition of any kind between reason and faith: each contains the other, and each has its own scope for action.”6 John Paul II goes on to point out the need for “a philosophy of genuinely metaphysical range, capable, that is, of transcending empirical data in order to attain something absolute, ultimate and foundational in its search for truth.”6 Regarding scripture John Paul II points out that, “What is distinctive in the biblical text is the conviction that there is a profound and indissoluble unity between the knowledge of reason and the knowledge of faith.”6 John Paul II address’ scientist directly in his encylical when writing, “I would urge them to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person.”6
The bad Metaphysics of modern philosophy have affected the divorce between faith and science by creating a model without any apparent need for presuppositions, by drawing a circle around things, so to speak, and viewing the parts before the whole; however, by returning to a Thomistic understanding of the world, and reestablishing a top down way of looking at things, the divorce of faith and science would come to a quick end, and as John Paul II puts it, human beings will be able to “come to a unified and organic vision of knowledge.”6
Benedict Ashley O.P., Philosophy for Theologians: The Intellectual Ambiguities of Contemporary Culture, n.d., http://wm.ctdlc.org/webmentor/courses/dl028/cgi-bin/lu.cgi? (11 may 2007)
Benedict Ashley O.P., Philosophy for Theologians: Critique of the Foundation of Contemporary Natural Science, n.d.,
http://wm.ctdlc.org/webmentor/courses/dl028/cgi-bin/lu.cgi?INVOKED=1184189253 (11 July 2007)
Avery Dulles, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (New York: Crossroads Publishing Company, 1992) 135.
William Wallace, The Elements of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers and Theologians (New York: Alba House, 1977) 304.
Benedict Ashley O.P., Philosophy for Theologins: Introduction, n.d., http://wm.ctdlc.org/webmentor/courses/dl028/cgi-bin/lu.cgi?INVOKED=1184189253 (11 July 2007)
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Fides Et Ratio. 15 September, 1998.
Meister der Paraphrasen des Pentateuch 11th century
Written By: C.T. Mallek 2007
The bad metaphysics of modern philosophers such as Descartes, Kant, and Hume affects the divorce between faith and science on a broad level simply in that it replaces an open Aristotelian metaphysical foundation with a closed mechanistic metaphysical foundation. By replacing the Aristotelian metaphysical foundation with a mechanistic foundation, philosophers—to remain consistent in this kind of “closed system”—had no room for a presupposed first mover as a starting point. Thus, faith and science were thought of as existing in separate spheres, one of which had little to do with the understanding of the other. Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Faith and Reason, not only addresses the fallacious assertions of these modern philosophers, but offers a remedy by demonstrating the truth of the Aristotelian or Tomistic worldview, showing that faith and science are by no means contrary to one another, but that it’s essential for the progression of humanity—of any kind—that faith and science (or reason) be used together.
While Aristotle pointed out the importance of looking at the whole of something before looking at it’s parts, the mechanist stresses the importance of observing the parts of a thing rather than the whole. Aristotle believed that once the whole is understood, an understanding of its parts will eventually also be understood. The metaphysics of Descartes, Kant, and Hume, in a sense, start opposite of where Aristotelian metaphysics start. Descartes, widely regarded as the father of modern philosophy—skeptical about claims to knowledge, trusted reason while distrusting the idea of empiricism. After dispensing with everything “not yet proven”—needing some kind of presupposition to establish a first principle—Descartes came up with the well known and fallacious concept, “I think therefore I am”; thus ultimately leading to a philosophy that separated or divided reality into separate spheres, creating a kind of dualistic worldview, contrary to the predominantly Aristotelian worldview of the medieval scholastics. Descartes set out to establish a rational universal science to take the place of scholastic metaphysics; ultimately establishing the idea that, as Benedict Ashley O.P. puts it, “what we are most certain of is not the external "objective" world of the senses but our own introspective knowledge of our thoughts as self-conscious and free "subjects." Descartes’ philosophical position, being partially mechanistic, helped open the doors for a whole mechanistic worldview; a worldview contrary to the teleological understanding of nature as espoused by Aristotle. The machinists viewed the world in a kind of “closed system” from the bottom up as opposed to from the top down, leaving out the presupposition of there being a creator as first cause. Benedict Ashley puts it this way:
This uncritical mechanistic view of the foundations of natural science has ever since left modern science open to the confusions of the extreme epistemologies of idealism and empiricism and placed science in opposition to belief in God as spiritual first cause of physical reality.2
Contrary to the popular belief that modernism liberated science from the shackles of religion, this “bottom up” model, led science down a path of perpetual confusion. Avery Dulles writes, “Faith assists reason by extending reason’s sphere into the realm of supernatural mysteries and by delivering reason from errors, thanks to the surer light of revelation.”3
The problem escalated with David Hume who rejected Descartes dualistic worldview, taking things further into the realms of confusion by denying the human capacity to really know anything at all. To Hume, impressions and ideas are the only things that really exist. Hume argued that there is no external reality at all but just internal perceptions of such realities. So in essence, Hume denied the already fallacious idea of being able to know God simply, and only, on dogmatic terms. William Wallace writes, “The great genius of Immanuel Kant was to transcend the Enlightenment division and renew the main philosophical task of integrating experience and reason.”4 Immanuel Kant, originally a rationalist, attempted to find common ground between the two philosophies; however, ultimately burying the truth just that much further under the mound of misunderstanding by continuing to hold to a certain subjective understanding of things. Thus, both Hume and Kant reinforced the separation of faith and science, and moreover the idea that human intelligence really can’t know anything. This brought about, as Ashley puts it, a "hermeneutic of suspicion that undermines all trust and claims one opinion is as good as another.”5
John Paul the II, in defense of both human reason and faith, wrote the Encyclical Fides et Ratio. In Fides et Ratio, John Paul II addresses the situation brought about by years of poor philosophy, defending reason and the power of human intelligence while demonstrating how reason and faith work together, not in separate spheres as some of the earlier philosophers taught. John Paul II points out how the divorce between faith and reason has led to a “crisis of meaning” in culture. That years of bad philosophy has led modern man to question whether or not “meaning” is even worth searching for. John Paul II points out the importance of viewing the world through a Thomistic based lens; and further, that both faith and science suffer when viewed through the prism of bad philosophy. John Paul II writes, “ … Therefore, reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way …There is thus no reason for competition of any kind between reason and faith: each contains the other, and each has its own scope for action.”6 John Paul II goes on to point out the need for “a philosophy of genuinely metaphysical range, capable, that is, of transcending empirical data in order to attain something absolute, ultimate and foundational in its search for truth.”6 Regarding scripture John Paul II points out that, “What is distinctive in the biblical text is the conviction that there is a profound and indissoluble unity between the knowledge of reason and the knowledge of faith.”6 John Paul II address’ scientist directly in his encylical when writing, “I would urge them to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person.”6
The bad Metaphysics of modern philosophy have affected the divorce between faith and science by creating a model without any apparent need for presuppositions, by drawing a circle around things, so to speak, and viewing the parts before the whole; however, by returning to a Thomistic understanding of the world, and reestablishing a top down way of looking at things, the divorce of faith and science would come to a quick end, and as John Paul II puts it, human beings will be able to “come to a unified and organic vision of knowledge.”6
Benedict Ashley O.P., Philosophy for Theologians: The Intellectual Ambiguities of Contemporary Culture, n.d., http://wm.ctdlc.org/webmentor/courses/dl028/cgi-bin/lu.cgi? (11 may 2007)
Benedict Ashley O.P., Philosophy for Theologians: Critique of the Foundation of Contemporary Natural Science, n.d.,
http://wm.ctdlc.org/webmentor/courses/dl028/cgi-bin/lu.cgi?INVOKED=1184189253 (11 July 2007)
Avery Dulles, The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System (New York: Crossroads Publishing Company, 1992) 135.
William Wallace, The Elements of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers and Theologians (New York: Alba House, 1977) 304.
Benedict Ashley O.P., Philosophy for Theologins: Introduction, n.d., http://wm.ctdlc.org/webmentor/courses/dl028/cgi-bin/lu.cgi?INVOKED=1184189253 (11 July 2007)
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Fides Et Ratio. 15 September, 1998.
Meister der Paraphrasen des Pentateuch 11th century