Is Christian Philosophy an Oxymoron?

[davespb]

The Forum name "Non-Christian Religions and Philosophies" suggests that "Christian Philosophy" exists. I believe that philosophy and religion are totally incompatible. That is not to say that the religious people cannot be philosophers - they can, but only at the expense of sacrificing personal integrity and internal consistency of their beliefs. That is not to say, that some religious thinkers may choose to call it "philosophy" - but it does not mean we have to accept it.

Philosophy, by design, cannot erect any fences on the way of a free and rational human inquiry - in fact, it is supposed to find and thoroughly destroy them when encountered along the way.

Religion needs such fences. No matter what philosophical school you belong to, any rational methodology will put you at odds with the religious dogma. If you are an empiricist, religion will point out that God is beyond empirical senses. If you are an idealist, well, then the gap is less clear, but look at Thomas Aquinas, the father of catholic philosophy. He could not do better than essentially saying that whenever reason contradicts the holly scriptures, this is the evidence of the limitations of reason, not scriptures. While religious thought has progressed since then, instead of embracing reason it has only learned how to better camouflage its ongoing assault on it.

To oversimplify, I do not see how the "I believe because of the empirical evidence and logic" with "I believe in spite of the empirical evidence and logic" approaches of philosophy vs religion can coexist in a single coherent system of thought.

[cnorman18]

The Forum name "Non-Christian Religions and Philosophies" suggests that "Christian Philosophy" exists. I believe that philosophy and religion are totally incompatible. That is not to say that the religious people cannot be philosophers - they can, but only at the expense of sacrificing personal integrity and internal consistency of their beliefs. That is not to say, that some religious thinkers may choose to call it "philosophy" - but it does not mean we have to accept it.

Philosophy, by design, cannot erect any fences on the way of a free and rational human inquiry - in fact, it is supposed to find and thoroughly destroy them when encountered along the way.

Religion needs such fences. No matter what philosophical school you belong to, any rational methodology will put you at odds with the religious dogma. If you are an empiricist, religion will point out that God is beyond empirical senses. If you are an idealist, well, then the gap is less clear, but look at Thomas Aquinas, the father of catholic philosophy. He could not do better than essentially saying that whenever reason contradicts the holly scriptures, this is the evidence of the limitations of reason, not scriptures. While religious thought has progressed since then, instead of embracing reason it has only learned how to better camouflage its ongoing assault on it.

To oversimplify, I do not see how the "I believe because of the empirical evidence and logic" with "I believe in spite of the empirical evidence and logic" approaches of philosophy vs religion can coexist in a single coherent system of thought.

Depends on the religion. It is a well-known saying, among Jews, that "The only dogma of Judaism is that there is no dogma," and though less well-known, there is also a dictum of the Talmud which says, "A well-ordered and logical argument has the same authority as a Scriptural command."

I've mentioned both of those ideas before, and the following one as well, which is from the rabbi who performed my conversion to Judaism (and who is quoted in my signature): "When you see something in the Torah that you know to be wrong, there are two possibilities; either you do not understand the Torah properly, or the Torah is in error." Notice that the third alternative, to which you allude above, is not available to Jews -- to wit, to overrule one's own intelligence, rationality, and moral judgment in favor of religious dogmatism. That is, by way of contrast to Christian fundamentalism, forbidden to us (though a few do so anyway; we have our fundamentalist nutballs too).

Perhaps this is why Jews are, and have always been, more heavily overrepresented in the sciences, out of all proportion to our numbers, than any people on Earth. E.g., 27% of the Nobel prizes in chemistry, economics, physics, and physiology/medicine have been won by Jews, who constitute 0.2% of the world's population. (If there were a Nobel prize in mathematics, that proportion would probably be even higher. I've always wondered why there isn't. Maybe Alfred disliked math.) This has always been true; Maimonides, the greatest rabbi in our history since Moses, was also the greatest physician of his age -- in the 12th century.

Logic and critical thought are not mutually exclusive with religion, and thus, philosophy isn't either. Like I said, it just depends on the religion -- or, more accurately, on one's approach to it. Much the same can be said for many iterations of liberal Christianity. I should know; one of them was my religion before I became a Jew.