Is It Necessary for Reason and Faith to Say the Same Thing in Order to be Compatible?

Aquinas and Bonaventure both begin naturally at a faith basis; the Genesis creation story, and the fundamental doctrine given by the Lateran IV Council in 1215, in regards to the Act of Creation. The world was created ex nihilo (out of nothing), and is temporal. It has not always existed, and time was created alongside the world, for God is timeless.
   
Bonaventure believed firmly that the two principles of the Council implied one another. If you hold that the world was created, it intrinsically follows that there was a beginning of time. This for Bonaventure is not simply a belief of faith; philosophically the first statement automatically implies the second. It is demonstrable through reason. Believing in Creation ex nihilo, is saying that that there was initially just God and nothing, out of nothing was created something, so there is then God and something (the world). Therefore the world could not have existed forever. Bonaventure sees that Creation by definition marks an unmistakable beginning, and believes there are two acts by God. He first creates, and then conserves, keeping the world into being. A second argument refuting the possibility of an eternal world concerns the concept of infinity; Bonaventure believes that one implies the other, if the world is eternal, then infinity must have an actuality, which is not possible. Also it logically follows that if the world was eternal, mankind must also be eternal. There must be a infinity of souls, as well as a infinity of people on earth and yet to come, however Bonaventure points out that a simultaneously infinite number is not possible. Consequently the world must be temporal. Bonaventure provides proof of these two rational arguments in his quaestio found at the start of his Commentary on the second book of Peter Lombard’s Sentences. Here he provides six rational and philosophical arguments from Maimonides and Mutakallamum on the temporal beginning of the world.

Consequently Bonaventure believes that faith and reason can not only be compatible but can be seen to say the same thing. However this is not the case with rational arguments incompatible with faith. For example, he holds that you cannot maintain both the Christian belief, Creation ex nihilo, and Aristotle’s belief that the world is eternal. This is a logical contradiction, based on philosophical reason. Aristotle is ultimately a natural philosopher, and his creation theory is based on natural motion. Thus according to Aristotelian reasoning, it logically follows that the Unmoved Mover requires there to be something upon which it can act. This prime matter is logically eternal alongside the Unmoved Mover. Bonaventure argues that the world can only be eternal if it is uncreated; a created, eternal world is a contradiction by definition. Bonaventure does in time conclude that Aristotle does make a philosophical point, but one which is not compatible with a faith perspective. As Aquinas maintains, philosophy needs to be guided by faith in order to stay within the realm of truth. Aristotle’s line of reasoning cannot be faulted considered purely in the context of natural philosophy. However as it is pure natural philosophy it will not compliment faith teachings.

Thomas Aquinas explored whether the eternity of the world could be philosophically proven in his treatise, De aeternitate mundi. He naturally agrees with the Lateran IV Council; however he differs from Bonaventure; believing that while faith and reason can be compatible, they do not say the same thing. He also maintains that philosophically speaking there can be an eternal, created universe, based on reason alone. Where Bonaventure held that the statement ‘Creation ex nihilo’ had the same meaning both philosophically and theologically, Aquinas believes that there are two meanings.

The philosophical meaning is that Creation never ends. There is no conservation after Creation. Aquinas sees that the act of Creation encompasses the world coming into being and then being kept in existence by God. This philosophical view of Creation comes from Aristotelian thought, based on rational empirical evidence. Every part of the universe is reliant on a cause for its existence, and there is a state of change always happening. Creation is therefore not a change from nothing to something, but a continuing relation of dependence between the created and the Creator, thus a beginning is not required. Therefore rationally speaking, the world may well be eternal rather than temporal, and here the idea of Creation ex nihilo and concept of the eternal prime matter from Aristotle is not completely incompatible.

Aquinas also acknowledged that there are scholars who maintain that Creation ex nihilo occurred, and that this automatically meant that the world cannot be eternal. This is of course Bonaventure’s view, who believed there could be demonstration outside of faith, in the realm of reason, to prove the temporal world. Aquinas however does not agree with this view either. He follows the thought of Gregory the Great; that the beginning of the world is a belief based on faith. Scripture reveals that ‘In the beginning’ God created heaven and earth; however this statement of belief ultimately remains un-demonstrative, and thus can be easily contested and mocked by philosophers who argue for the eternity of the world by providing rational evidence.

The theological meaning of Creation ex nihilo is that Scriptures affirm that the world began; there was a beginning of time, but for a more completion of the truth, faith and reason come together, being compatible and yet distinct. Faith decrees the universe is not eternal, however philosophically it is possible for a created eternal world; however reason cannot ultimately prove this as a fact.

Aquinas explores these two sources of knowledge in the Summa Contra Gentiles. There is rational knowledge, based on the natural world, and there is knowledge which stems from faith and divine revelation, and comes to us via wisdom given by the Holy Spirit. These two co-exist together and can be compatible; however they are very distinct pathways of knowledge as a result of their two separate channels. Divine knowledge is guided through Scripture and doctrines, while rational knowledge is guided through philosophy. They stem however from the one source, God.