I read this recently from one the theology blogs that I read. Link below:
In this post Adam Kotsko makes a interesting argument that the usual resolution between what constitutes the difference between philosophy and theology. Although he describes the usual resolution as boring, and this is a crude way of putting, he is right. For example, the first suggestion Kotsko states "One potential starting point is the very formalistic definition of theology familiar from Tillich: theology is discourse about the “ultimate concern.” However, this potential solution is discounted by Kotsko as there are both Theological and Philosophical examples which have discourses which are about 'ultimate concern'.
The second, slightly more interesting (yet still boring?) solution is one brought about by Kierkegaard and his argument that with in Theology there is the importance of historical events; and it is this at separates the two disciplines. Yet again Kotsko points out that there can be argued that there are historical events of importance in the Philosophy as well e.g. The French Revolution.
However, this is where it gets intriguing. Kotsko argues that "a truly interesting investigation will see the relationship between the two as one of continual struggle". When reading this I found Kotsko to be articulating a view which I have been mulling over for a year now. Only I would describe the relationship not as a struggle but as conflict. From what I have experienced so far, as a person who jumps from one side of the academic fence to the other, is that I rarely find it just a struggle and more a conflict. As though Philosophy and Theology were disgruntled neighbours either side of my mind separated by a fence and trying to take swings at each other. Only on occasion I manage to get them to work together for the day, e.g when discussing the arguments for the existence of God or debates about free will.
On those occasions, however, it seems that Philosophy always comes out on top, not because there is a final conclusion that is confirmed, but because the steps in the argument have more foundation, more reason to agree, less assumption. Now, this may seem obvious as Philosophy relys on reason, and at some point Theology will rely on belief or faith. I will suppose now that it is here where the conflict lies. Your mind tells you to follow reason and logic, yet something else within you (or at least this is my experience) asks you to reconsider the possibilities that faith/belief can lead you to.
It is my feeling that this conflict or in Kotsko's words "struggle" that Philosophy and Theology find themselves in will only be resolved on a subjective level. One needs to find their own balance of the two, but please let me if you find the scales that work.
No comments:
Post a Comment