Is It Necessary for Reason and Faith to Say the Same Thing in Order to be Compatible?
by In every discussion of religious beliefs, i.e the existence of God and the Act of Creation, there will be naturally both a rational and faith perspective. This article will explore whether it is necessary for faith and reason to say the same thing in order to be compatible with one another. Two renowned medieval theologians will be discussed; St Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas, both of whom show how philosophy can be used in discussion of religious doctrine, in this case the Act of Creation.
Aquinas calls this “a two fold truth” about religious beliefs, one route stops at human reason, while the other can go far beyond this realm. Philosophy (reason) can be wrong, and form false truths, when not guided by faith, but knowledge from revelation can never be faulty. Both however are required. They cannot provide the same truth, for this would mean that only one would be required, the existence of both would be pointless. The aim is for both to follow their own routes, philosophy providing rational evidence for the principles of faith. Aquinas however holds that there are two types of faith, one which can be rationally demonstrated (preambles of faith), and others which cannot, which rely solely on revealed knowledge (articles of faith). An example of a preamble of faith is God’s existence. The Act of Creation however is revealed faith only, it cannot be proved. Aquinas therefore sees that rationally, a created eternal universe is possible, however that it is not compatible with faith.
In summary, this article has explored two major figures of the medieval debate regarding the creation of the world. Bonaventure and Aquinas both have made reference to the nature and relationship of faith and reason, in connection with the Lateran Council IV doctrine on Creation. Bonaventure maintains that faith and reason are compatible and say the same, while Aquinas questions whether it is indeed necessary for the two to say the same tin order to be compatible. He concludes after exploring the issue in detail that it is not necessary. Indeed by their very natures the two forms of knowledge will not say the same thing, and we use different, sometimes even opposing means in order to utilize these two types of knowledge. Rational knowledge is concerned with the empirical realm, while revealed knowledge is concerned with matters above the earthly realm and rational understanding. It is in a way superior to rational knowledge; however both are necessary to gain full truth. They are ultimately compatible for they stem from the source of truth, God.
Liked it
