Athens and Jerusalem; Faith and Reason; Paganism and Christianity

Tertullian (160A.D. to 200A.D.), and many of his Christian predecessors and contemporaries saw the need to differentiate themselves from the Pagan philosophers of Greece. Christians, in Tertullian's eyes, are the heirs of the exclusive majesty and transcendence of the God of Isreal. There was a clear and present sense of suspicion among the early Christians toward the Greek Pagans, who wielded the power of “trickery” with ease, i.e. reason and the art of dialectic. The Pagans were considered conveyor belts of a dangerous energy that could lead one astray from the path of righteousness into a nothingness. Many early Christians believed it was necessary to defend their religion and beliefs against attacks made on it by non-Christian thinkers, and to show that true wisdom was to be found in Christian teachings rather than in the teachings of the Pagan philosophers.

            Perhaps one reason for this early-on perceived need to differentiate Christianity from Paganism lies in the historical context. Christianity was still in its relative infancy during Tertullian's life. Early Christianity developed in the Roman Empire during an age where many religions co-existed. These religions, though differing in fundamental beliefs and view points, were simply labeled as “Paganism” by the Early Christians. Tertullian was the first Latin Christian to argue that Christianity was the “vera religio,” or “true religion.” The historical context is one piece of the puzzle which points to the practical consideration of Tertullian's polemic. Tertullian's views will serve as one example of the Christian response the the question of reason/faith.

            With this in mind, Tertullian responds to the Pagan Celsus who wrote a heated polemic against the Christians. Celsus argues that Reason is the only way to Truth. Celsus claimed that Christian beliefs were superstitious, infantile, and uncultivated. Tertullian responded in kind, condemning all Pagan thought as Heretical. Although Tertullian formulated a response, he responds evasively to Celsus' argument, ignoring the main thrusts of Celsus' polemic. In his response to Celsus entitled An Injunction Against Heretics, Tertullian writes about “wretched Aristotle” who taught Valentinus, “the art of dialectic, skillful and cunning in building up and pulling down, using argumentation, active in raising objections, contrary against itself, dealing backwards and forwards with everything, so that he really deals with nothing (Tertullian 31). Tertullian lists several pagan philosophers, condemning them as Heretics, as well as those Christian thinkers who wished to incorporate certain aspects of Paganism into Christianity.

            Tertullian continues, “From this comes those fables and genealogies, unprofitable questions, and words that spread like a cancer, from which the Apostle Paul restrains us, telling us that philosophy should be avoided, writing to the Colossians, 'Beware lest anyone beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit after the way of men'” (Tertullian 31). The problem with reason, it seems, is that it is an exercise in human vanity, an attempt to prove the exceptional character of the human mind contra the greatness of God and what He reveals with absolute certainty to be the Truth. Grace and Truth are given to humans from the hand of God alone. The show of human initiative in the exercise of reason signifies rebellion towards God.

            For Tertullian, Athens (symbolizing reason) has nothing to do with Jerusalem (symbolizing faith). Reason and Faith are diametrically opposed points of view. Tertullian's view is a form of Fideism, or the belief that Faith is the only way to Truth. The machinations of the intellect are to be ignored, while the feelings of the heart, the intuitions that lead to God, are to be embraced. Tertullian writes, “We do not need this kind of curiosity [philosophy, reason] now that we have Jesus, nor do we need inquiry now that we have the Gospel” (Tertullian 31). Through faith, the Christian achieves knowledge of the Divine Truth (God's word), this Truth provides peace and tranquility. Comfort comes from being in the presence of God. Jerusalem is the only way to Truth. One must believe obediently the Word of God. In short, Tertullian has nothing but hostility and contempt for Paganism. However, for most of the other Christian theologians who proceed Tertullian, faith and reason work together in a delicate balancing act aimed toward revelation of the Divine. Many other Christian theologians grapple with the issues raised by Greek Paganism and develop quasi-favorable attitudes towards Platonism, although subtly changing Plato's language.

            The phrase “fides quaerens intellectum” (“Faith seeking Reason”) sums up the view of the theologian Saint Augustine (354-430 C.E.). Augustine does not take as hostile of an attitude towards Paganism as Tertullian. Augustine is one of the major medieval philosophers, whose influence helped to introduce and incorporate certain aspects of classical Greek thought and Neo-Platonism into Christianity and Medieval philosophy. As a student, Augustine ardently read Virgil and Cicero. Augustine recounts, in his work Confessions, that Cicero exerted an important influence on Augustine's early understanding of philosophy (Confessions 38-39).

 

            Augustine's conception of philosophy is not what we mean today by the term. Philosophy today places a large focus on logical argumentation of concepts and particular problems. In contrast, Philosophy for Augustine is centered around the pursuit of Wisdom broadly conceived. Augustine often delves into domains we would characterize today as psychology, religion, and philosophy. During the time period these branches of knowledge were not yet separate areas of thought, each having their own distinct methods of inquiry and subject matter, but were intimately bound up with each other.

            Not only was Augustine familiar with Cicero, he also briefly flirted with Manichean teachings and explanations of Good and Evil (Confessions 41-42).  Augustine was initially attracted to the Manichean explanation to the problem of evil (if god is omni-benevolent, then why does evil exist in the world?). The Manichees argued that there was an eternal struggle between Good and Evil, represented by the image of light and dark. Evil, under this view, is a presence. Augustine eventually becomes disillusioned with the Manichees. He felt that the Manichees could not provide a robust enough defense of their cosmology (the study of the origin and structure of the world), nor did he agree with their answer to the problem of evil.  However, Augustine eventually encounters the writings of Ambrose and soon breaks with the Manichees. Through Ambrose Aquinas becomes acquainted with Neo-Platonism.

            For the Neo-Platonists, the world is organized in a particular way and exhibits a rational structure. Humans can gain access to these structures through the soul by employing reason alone (a priori). Plato's structure of being is hierarchical in essence: beginning with “The Good,” which is a unity of all the Platonic forms (ideas and eternal truths). The “Good” is eternal, infinite, unchanging, and perfect. The “Good” is so perfect that it necessarily emanates being; in other words, the “Good” is the source and locus of all that comes beneath it. The good progressively blossoms downward through various modes of increasing complexity, diversity, and plurality. “The Good” is conceived as an impersonal, non-volitional process. The lowest domain of being is that of material objects, or the sensuous world. This realm is ranked lower than “The Good” because the content of this world (material things) are finite, imperfect, and changing. Since the sensuous world is constantly changing – a realm of chaos and difference -- it is unable to furnish the mind with eternal Truths.

            For this reason happiness, for the Neo-Platonists, consists in contemplating “The Good” or the unity of all the eternal forms. To achieve happiness, one must ignore the world of the senses (matter) and the body (which is seen as a cage trapping the soul) and exercise reason to cultivate the soul. By doing this, one's soul becomes more like the forms. Upon death one's soul will be light like the forms, and float up among the forms. However, if one spent life preoccupied with sensuous things, then one's soul would be heavy like matter and upon death descend into Hades. The soul can only become virtuous or happy by ignoring the body and the material world.

            Augustine's theology and way of thinking borrows from Neo-Platonism. Augustine adopts a substantial amount from the Neo-Platonic metaphysical framework, while making important revisions in order to incorporate the Neo-Platonic concepts into Christianity. Under Augustine, the Neo-Platonic “Good” becomes God, who is the vector and conscious creator of all Goodness, Truth, and Being. From God's freely determined choice comes all lower, created beings. In contrast to the indifferent “Good” of the Neo-Platonist, Augustine infuses the Christian attributes of God (free will, all-just, and purposefully engaged in directing human events) with the Greek attributes of the “Good” (eternal, immutable,  necessary).  Augustine maintains the Platonic distinction between the empirical realm of senses and the a priori realm of eternal truths. However, whereas Plato and the Neo-Platonists refereed to this as the “realm of forms,” Augustine calls this realm “Heaven.”

 

            Following Plato, Augustine adopts a form of asceticism, arguing that the body was of lesser value than the spirit: the spirit (or what Plato calls the soul) is the most important thing. Plato argues that through exercising reason, the soul can catch glimpses of the eternal Forms. Unlike the Manichees, Augustine rejects the view that the body is a negative entrapment. Rather, God gives the spirit free will and assigns it to a particular body befitting of that particular spirit's nature. For Augustine, the spirit – through praying to and contemplating God -- can achieve earthly happiness (as opposed to the eternal bliss of heaven). Contemplating and taking faith in the heavenly realm, with God as its creator, and living in the Word of God, is the only absolute way to achieve contentment, peace, and true happiness. The contemplation of heaven demolishes the fear, selfishness, and anxiety created by the finite nature of the material world.  

            Most importantly, Augustine's study and appropriation of the Neo-Platonic metaphysical framework provides him with a new answer to the problem of evil. Augustine comes to argue that Evil is not a presence, but an absence of good. Augustine, because he abandons the Manichees' simplistic explanation of Evil, is able to draw a more complex picture of the human condition. Since God gives man free will, Evil arises out of the human choice to sin. God, who is all-just (in Augustine's view) administers justice to those who have created evil through sinning. Thomas Aquinas, who follows in the footsteps of Augustine, adopts a similar metaphysical structure. It is not possible due to the length constraints of this paper, to cover Aquinas as in depth as Augustine. However, we will broadly consider Aquinas' views on reason/faith.

            When discussing whether philosophy (“philosophical science”) is the only knowledge worth having, Aquinas answers, “It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical knowledge” (Aquinas 1). There are two kinds of Truth, argues Aquinas, which are determined by their domains or natures. On the one hand, there is the truth uncovered through the exercise of reason and supported by reason [philosophical science], and, on the other hand, there is Divine Truth disclosed through Divine Revelation which can only be accepted by faith [theology]. Aquinas argues that both reason and revelation are necessary and complementary.-- they are two sides of the same coin: the Truth. What is important here is that Aquinas, unlike Tertullian, does not reject reason wholesale. It seems that Aquinas -- at least during the time period in which he wrote the Summa Theologica -- has a positive view of reason and philosophy. However, this does not mean he sees no place for faith within Christianity.

            In Aquinas' view reason has a limit; reason cannot go beyond or above itself; i.e because of the limited and finite nature of humans, reason's work takes place in a fragmented and non-linear fashion. Further, the fruits of reason are always limited. Aquinas writes, “man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends up the knowledge of this truth” (Aquinas 1). He then concludes, “Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation” (Aquinas 1). In other words, because of reason's limitation, God made it necessary for divine revelation to take place. Furthermore, it was also necessary that there should be a sacred science learned through revelation. Aquinas believes that humans have the ability to know many truths without divine revelation, but that faith is also a fundamental part of gaining access to the Truth. By the time Aquinas is writing, it seems as if Reason and Faith both have secure footing within Christianity.

            However, by the early 13^th century the Church fathers react to perceived alien influences in Christianity. In 1277, Bishop Tempier condemned 219 theses from a number of philosophers and theologians; Archbishop Kilwardby condemned another 30 propositions (HW 583). This event is known as the Condemnation of 1277. Thomas Aquinas, who considered himself a Christian theologian, was attacked in the Condemnation of 1277, along with the Islamist thinkers Avicenna and Averroes, as well as one of Greek Paganism's greatest and most well-known philosophers, Aristotle. One issue the condemnation is centered around the question of God's omnipotence: Bishop Tempier holds that God is all-powerful, which means that he has the power to transcend even logic. God, since he is all-powerful, can – if he so wills it – render the contours of rational argument meaningless. Bishop Tempier believes that Averroes, Aquinas, and Aristotle all fail to agree with Christian teaching on the question of God's omnipotence. Bishop Tempier's condemnation seems to rely more upon tradition and authority, rather than reason.

            Averroes, an Islamic philosopher, is most well-known for reviving interest in Aristotle in the West. Averroes argues that religious faith and reason are two different and legitimate ways to come to the Truth. Averroes writes, “That the Law summons to reflection on beings, and the pursuit of knowledge about them, by the intellect is clear from several verses of the Book of God... 'Reflect, you have vision'” (HW 298). Of any of the religious thinkers mentioned in this paper, Averroes has the most positive appraisal of reason, arguing that God necessitates the use of Reason. Under this view, philosophy and theology are both fundamental to coming to a knowledge of God. Averroes also held the view that cause and effect are necessarily connected. Averroes develops this view contra Al-Ghazali who holds that God is all-powerful, and thus could intervene in the world at any time, creating effects that have no rational cause. Archbishop Tempier condemns Averroes for the belief that the world was not created, but has existed for eternity, as well as for holding the viewpoint that the individual soul is not eternal.

            It would be incredibly hard to claim that Christianity exhibits one clear-cut answer to the question regarding the relation between faith and reason. There exists an immense diversity of viewpoints coming from Christian theologians and Papal authorities. Tertullian sides with faith, while condemning reason. Augustine engages other non-Christian philosophers, and incorporates Neo-Platonic rationalism into Christianity. Aquinas' interpretation of Christianity has room for both reason and faith; although he places greater emphasis on faith rather than reason. Averroes, the Islamic thinker, believes that the Qur'an provides scriptural evidence for the necessity of reason along with faith. Averroes is the most reasonable, despite the fact that certain aspects of his arguments rely upon appeals to scriptural authority.