Skip to main content

Three Divisions of Philosophical Theology

Also discussed as "God of the Rationalist or God of the Empiricists" at Philpapers.org

Philosophical theology can be basically divided into three classes: Rationalist theology, Empirical theology, and Intermediate Theology.

Rationalist Theology includes isms such as monism (e.g. Parmenides and Zeno) and non-dualism (Advaitins of India) whose assertions are usually supported by arguments that rationally dismiss experience as false and irrational. This they do with reference to ultimate concepts such as unity, necessity, infinity, immutability, and transcendence (none of which can be predicated of the things of experience). Thus, God becomes the "wholly other" transcendent reality that can only be talked about via negativa.

Empirical Theology, on the other hand, is quite the opposite of the previous. It actually brings religion down to the earth. The gods and goddesses are more human like, and earthly; and, of course, positively understandable in empirical categories. Animism and polytheism are examples of such. In some of them, there is the concept of a Creator who, however, only creates out of pre-existing material. The atheistic religion, Jainism, is more a pluralistic realism in itself and has no place for any special creator God. They retain the idea of the world (including gods, if any) as pluralistic, contingent, finite, mutable, and immanent. Empiricism usually attempts to jettison the rational (e.g. the Logical Positivists attempt to eradicate metaphysics).

Kant tried to bring some union between the two poles.

Intermediate Theology, then would be something that stands at the meeting place of Rationalist Theology and Empirical Theology. The nature of the union may be diverse. I guess we can classify pantheism, panentheism, and probably Buddhist nihilism as the intermediates somewhere between the gods of the mountains (reason) and the gods of the valleys (down to earth experience). Historically speaking, in India, the Buddhist revolt is sandwiched between a very materialistic and Vedic polytheistic age and the Upanishadic non-dualistic age.

A fourth form of theology, however, is Revelational Theology, which doesn't fall in the field of Philosophical Theology, since it is not founded on philosophical arguments (either on rational or empirical) but is based on some kind of "Divine Revelation". Systematic theologians usually use a branch of theology called apologetics to provide arguments for this, a branch which is usually called Natural Theology.

Note: Barth and Brunner usually had referred to Natural Theology as the same as Philosophical Theology (and Barth is noted for calling Natural Theology as demonic.)  However, as Mortimer J. Adler has shown, the two are actually distinct. We see that Philosophical Theology usually leads to other conclusions that those affirmed by Revelational Theology.


Note (15 June 2012): John Hick, however, had interpreted Philosophical Theology as the philosophy of the Christian (See quote below from Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion, 2001, p7):
"these developments, which are technically superb and constitute
impressive philosophical exercises, are however seriously limited, in my
opinion, by very conservative theological presuppositions. They belong
to philosophy of religion in the now old-fashioned sense in which this
is understood to be the philosophy of the Christian (or at most the
Judaeo-Christian) tradition, and they do not face the problems created
by the fact that Christianity is one major world religion among others.
Indeed Alston, Plantinga, Swinburne and the many others who are
working solely within the confines of their own tradition are for the
most part really doing philosophical theology rather than philosophy
of religion."


====
Intermediate Theologies usually tend towards either rationalism (where all sense-experience (phenomenal reality) is deemed illusory) or tend towards empiricism (where contingency, plurality, immanence, et al. become important themes).


Follow the complete thread of discussion at Philpapers.

Comments

  1. [...] and exclusivism or particularism as preferably known. Theology and Philosophy of Religion Three Divisions of Philosophical Theology Poll Results: Are all Mission Fields “Harvest [...]

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Do We Know If An Opportunity Is From God?

1. Usually, it should be clear; but, if there is doubt, then there are reasons to reconsider (Rom.14:23) 2. Sometimes the goal may be noble, but the opportunity not. Any opportunity that compels you to hurry ahead of God will land you in a crash (Jer.48:10). 3. It should not invite you to do things or employ means that the Bible clearly forbids. If it does so, it is not divine opportunity but temptation to sin (James 1:13). 4. It should not tempt God, i.e. it should not be something like "I will jump from the pinnacle, He will send His angels in time to save me, because His Word promises so" (Matt.4:6,7). It will lead to disaster. 5. It should not be forced by human whims, even so-called prophecy or divine leading, especially when you don't have peace about it in your heart. Remember how a young prophet fell prey to a lion because he disobeyed God by listening to the lie of a prophet (1Kgs.13:16-24). There is a reason why Paul mentioned that when He heard God's cal...

7 Ghastly Sins of Ministry (Micah 3)

Text: Micah 3 1.  Hatred of Good and Love of Evil (Mic 3:2) A. Values that are Self-Centered, Not Christ-Centered B. Values that are Self-Defined, Not Spirit-Defined C. Values that are Self-Glorifying, Not God-Glorifying A confused value-system that honors culture, man, and the world rather than the Law of God Luke16:15 And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God. 2. Exploitation of the Sheep (Mic 3:2) A. Manipulating People Like Things and Not Treating Them as Persons B. Over-Demanding C. Not Caring for the Well-being of Sheep Mat 20:25-28 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let hi...

The Opposition in Democracy

"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." (Prov.18:17) The Opposition is a vital part of modern democracy. It ensures that the government elected by the people is working on behalf of the people and fulfilling the goals it set before them. It also ensures that the ruling party practices transparency and accountability. The Opposition has the right to question the actions of the government and demand an account or rationale for its actions. It may be wrong in its assumptions, but it has the right to voice its questions, without which democracy will be annihilated. To try to silence the voice of the Opposition by any means whatsoever is to kill the soul of the nation which is liberty, unity, fraternity, and justice; for where the right to freedom is exterminated, democracy is dead. A government that labels the Opposition as traitor for questioning its actions is against the people. The Opposition provides an opportunity for the ...