Thread: Why Christians Accepted Greek Natural Philosophy, But Muslims Did Not

Interesting read.

Why Christians Accepted Greek Natural Philosophy, But Muslims Did Not | The Brussels Journal

The first Christian monasteries were created in Egypt before 320, but their number grew rapidly and spread to other regions of the Empire. According to legend, Pachomius was forced to join the Roman army against his will, but it is highly significant to see such an intimate connection between Roman military discipline and an institution that was to prove very influential in Christian and European history. In the post-Roman period, the most prominent Roman institution to survive in Western Europe was the Roman Church. The Church for centuries had a virtual monopoly over written communications and its network of monasteries was the sole educational outlet, instructing at least 90 percent of the literate men between 600 and 1100. Ronald J. Deibert writes in his Parchment, Printing, and Hypermedia:

“As Cantor explains, ‘half-consciously the pope worked to make the Roman episcopate the successor to the Roman state in the West.’ Leo’s [Leo I, Pope AD 440-461] prominent ideological work was complemented by the growth of a literate monastic network that gradually spread through western Europe. Throughout the period of Imperial disintegration, many aristocrats converted to Christianity, carrying over to the Church their literary education and respect for the preservation of the written word characteristic of late antiquity….But the veneration and preservation of the word that was carried over by former Roman aristocrats gradually became fused with the practices of monasticism, making the Church an island of literacy in an otherwise oral culture. In Cantor's words: ‘The Latin church was preserved from extinction, and European civilization with it, by the two ecclesiastical institutions that alone had the strength and efficiency to withstand the impress of surrounding barbarism: the regular clergy (that is, the monks) and the papacy.’”

It is worth noting that without Arabian philosophers we may have lost a good bit of what the Greek philosophers wrote.

The Muslims WERE influenced by Greek philosophy a great deal.

The Study of Islamic Philosophy

Islamic philosophy : Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online

20th WCP: The Neoplatonist Roots of Sufi Philosophy

al-Razi, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya' (d. 925)

DEFENDERS OF REASON IN ISLAM – THE CASE OF AVERROES (1126-1198 AD)

I don't think they rejected the philosophy but they came up with a "dual nature of Truth" theory. My understanding is that the Summa Theologica by Aquinas is a response to that view. The Koran could not be reconciled with Artistotlean logic and so the Muslims posited the idea that something could be True in the religious sphere while simultaneously false logically.

Aquinas attempted to repudiate this notion arguing that all Truth is God's Truth - both natural revelation, which reveals God and the science of the created order to men and special revelation, which more fully revealed the nature of salvation.

Insofar as Aquinas recognized that Revelation is not inherently in competition with reason and the light of nature I believe he was correct but I don't believe he accounted fully for the effects of the Fall on men's reason and his natural theology errs in allowing that man can have fruition in rightly interpreting natural revelation apart from regeneration.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

man can have fruition in rightly interpreting natural revelation apart from regeneration.

Where does he suggest that?

I think the author means to say that Greek philosophy was never really accepted by theologically orthodox Muslims (Koranic fundamentalists, if you will), and if so he is more or less correct. Virtually all of those medieval philosophers whom we call the 'Islamic', from al-Farabi and al-Razi to Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes), held to pagan philosophical doctrines to quite heretical degrees theologically. Put any one of them in Iran today and they'd probably be executed.

Take Averroes: He taught that Aristotelian philosophical science was true religion, and that 'regional' religions like Islam, Judaism, and Christianity -- what he called the 'virtuous' religions, none really superior to the other but their propogation necessary just because of their important role in political life -- were a kind of 'symbolic' or 'baby' philosophy for those not gifted with the intellectual equipment required for philosophical studies. For instance, the philosophers are to be careful to affirm in the presence of commoners the eternal suffering of which the Koran speaks, despite knowing that, in reality, there is no such thing upon death... but for the sake of law and order in society, the people must believe it. For Averroes, 'salvation' just meant accumulating all possible knowledge of the world through philosophy/science, whereby the rational agent becomes a part of the universal, impersonal Agent Intellect described in Aristotle's De Anima ('damnation' meant either ceasing to exist or being reincarnated as a lower species, as the Pythagoreans taught).

This kind of thought was the norm among the Islamic philosophers, which explains their heated relationship with the theologians (whom the philosophers deemed to be part of the plebian class) and al-Ghazali's protest against the practice of philosophy by Muslims.

Islam never had an Augustine or Aquinas, who successfully utilized Greek philosophy in service of and under the authority of the apostolic faith.

Originally Posted by py3ak

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

man can have fruition in rightly interpreting natural revelation apart from regeneration.

Where does he suggest that?

I believe it is implicit in his opening:

Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?



Objection 1: It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Ecclus. 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.


Objection 2: Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science---even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge.


On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.


I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Is. 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. 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. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.


Reply to Objection 1: Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Ecclus. 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.


Reply to Objection 2: Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.

Because of the more fitly and more surely?

I believe that Aquinas allows that a proper natural theology is possible apart from special Revelation and it is borne out in the sentence above where he indicates that Special Revelation sort of comes along to "fill in the blanks" where philosophical science leaves off.

It depends on what you think Aquinas allows natural theology to teach. I find his Summa Contra Gentiles more helpful in this respect that his Summa Theologicae. Here he clearly lays out that there are two sorts of truths: 1.) Those discernible by reason (e.g., That God is, or even the temporal blessings provided by the Old Law); and 2.) Those above reason, only knowable and proposed by revelation (e.g., The trinity, and eternal salvation) (see 1.3, 1.5)

It is also worth noting that he nevertheless holds revelation to be necessary, for the most part, even for those truths attainable by reason, since there are only a very few who would attain unto them, due to the training required, the infirmities of man's mind, the effort necessary to expend, the other duties of life, etc. (see 1.4)

I don't disagree that Aquinas believes Special Revelation is necessary for truths above reason. What I take issue with is his premise that man has fruition in his reason about God apart from regeneration.

In other words, special revelation is necessary for natural revelation. It's not that natural revelation is deficient in what it reveals about God but Romans 1 teaches that men suppress the truth of what God reveals therein. Creation utters forth speech about God but man suppresses it because of the Fall. Thus, special revelation is necessary to convert the heart and, only then, will man have fruition in natural revelation. Only then will natural revelation be perspicuous.

I do not believe, therefore, that Aquinas accounted for the effects of the Fall in his notion that special revelation only "fills in the gaps". It's much more than a gap filler but is necessary to rehabilitate reason altogether.

Rich, I'm no Thomist respecting these things, and certainly affirm that Thomas had far too high an understanding of the use of reason.

Muller sums up the 16th century Reformed position nicely in his Vera Philosophia cum sacra Theologia nusquam pugnat: Keckermann on Philosophy, Theology, and the Problem of Double Truth, when he states the following even of Keckermann (who had a very high view of the role of reason in theology):

Where Calvin and, we add, Musculus and Vermigli postulated a nature so vitiated by sin that even the reason is corrupt and faith alone suffices as the ground for finding the true God in scripture, Keckermann also can postulate a sinful human nature so fallen that reason fails to discern God apart from the work of the Spirit -- not, as Zuylen states, "normal" and whole.

This is an important point, as it notes the a posteriori role of natural theology in Christian theology.

I wasn't trying to beat you up but only to clarify.

It is interesting because when I read the Summa Theologica this jumped right out at me but I had the benefit of reading Calvin on the nature of Man's fruition from natural revelation before I read Thomas.

Rich,

It would take a lot more than this to make me feel I was being beat up -- even by Marine Lt. Colonel!