Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/65

 PHILOSOPHY

37

PHILOSOPHY

of Lautenbach and Othloh of St. Emmerain, in Germany.

(i) At the same time a new tendency becomes dis- cernible in the eleventh centurj-, in Lanfranc, Wil- liam of Hirschau, Rodulfus .\rdens, and particularly St. Anselm of Canterbun.-; the theologian calls in the aid of philosophy to demonstrate certain dogmas or to show their rational side. St. Anselm, in an Augus- tinian spirit, attempted this justification of dogma, without perhaps invariably applying to the demon- strative value of his arguments the requisite limi- tations. In the thirteenth centurj- these efforts resulted in a new theological method, the dialec- tic. (5) While these disputes as to the relations of philosophy and theology- went on, many philosophi- cal questions were nevertheless treated on their own account, as we have seen above (universals, St. An- selm's theodicy, .\belard's philosophy, etc.). (6) The dialectic method, developed fuUy in the twelfth cen- turj-, just when Scholastic theology received a power- ful impetus, is a theological, not a philosophical, method. The principal method in theology is the interpretation of Scripture and of authority; the dialectic method is secondarj- and consists in first establishing a dogma and then showing its reasonable- ness, confirming the argument from authority by the argument from reason. It is a process of apologetics. From the twelfth centur.- onward, these two theo- logical methods are fairly distinguished by the words auctoritates, rationes. Scholastic theology, condensed in the "summse" and "books of sentences", is hence- forward regarded as distinct from philosophy. The attitude of theologians towards philosophy is three- fold: one group, the least influential, still opposes its introduction into theology, and carries on the reaction- arj- traditions of the preceding period (e. g. Gautbier de Saint-Victor); another accepts philosophj-, but takes a utilitarian view of it, regarding it merelj- as a prop of dogma (Peter Lombard^ ; a third group, the most influential, since it includes the three theo- logical schools of St. Victor. Abelard, and Gilbert de la Porree, grants to philosophj-, in addition to this apologetic role, an independent value which en- titles it to be cultivated and studied for its own sake. The members of this group are at once both theologians and philosophers.

(7) At the opening of the thirteenth centurj- one section of Augustinian theologians continued to em- phasize the utilitarian and apologetic office of philoso- phj-. But St. Thomas Aquinas created new Scholastic traditions, and WTOte a chapter on scientific method- ology in which the distinctness and independence of the two sciences is thoroughlj- established. Duns Scotus, again, and the Terminists exaggerated this independence. Latin Averroism, which had a bril- liant but ephemeral vogue in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, accepted whole and entire in phOosophy Averroistic Peripateticism, and, to safe- guard CathoUc orthodoxj-, took refuge behind the sophism that what is true in philosophj- maj- be false in theology, and converselj- — wherein they were more reserved than Averroes and the Arab philosophers, who regarded religion as something inferior, good enough for the masses, and who did not trouble them- selves about Moslem orthodoxj-. Lullj-, going to extremes, maintained that all dogma is susceptible of demonstration, and that philosophj' and theology coalesce. Taken as a whole, the Middle .\ges. pro- foundly religious, constantly sought to reconcile its philosophy with the CathoUc Faith. This bond the Renaissance philosophj- severed. In the Reformation period a group of publicists, in \-iew of the prevailing strife, formed projects of reconciliation among the numerous religious bodies. Thej- con\-inced them- selves that all religions possess a common fund of essential truths relating to God, and that their con- tent is identical, in spite of divergent dogmas. Be-

sides, Theism, being onlj- a form of Naturism applied to religion, suited the independent waj-s of the Renais- sance. As in building up natural law, human na- ture was taken into consideration, so reason was in- terrogated to discover reUgious ideas. And hence the wide acceptance of Theism, not among Protestants onlj-, but generallj- among minds that had been carried awaj- with the Renaissance movement (Erasmus, Coomheert).

For this tolerance or religious indifferentism modern philosophj- in more than one instance substituted a disdain of positive reUgions. The EngUsh Theism or Deism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries criticizes all positive rehgion and, in the name of an innate religious sense, builds up a natural rehgion which is reducible to a collection of theses on the existence of God and the immortalitj- of the soul. The initiator of this movement was Herbert of Cher- burj- (1.581-1648); J. Toland (1670-1722), Tindal (16.56-17.33). and Lord BoUngbroke took part in it. This criticizing movement inaugurated in England was taken up in France, where it combined ^^-ith an outright hatred of Catholicism. Pierre Bajle (1646- 1706) propounded the thesis that all religion is anti- rational and absurd, and that a state composed of Atheists is possible, ^'oltaire wished to substitute for Cathohcism an incoherent mass of doctrines about God. The reUgious philosophj- of the eighteenth centurj- in France led to Atheism and paved the waj- for the Revolution. In justice to contemporarj- phi- losophj- it must be credited with teaching the amplest tolerance towards the various reUgions; and in its programme of research it has included reUgious psy- chologj', or the studj- of the reUgious sentiment.

For CathoUc philosophj- the relations between philosophj- and theology, between reason and faith, were fixed, In a chapter of scientific methodology, bj- the great Scholastic thinkers of the thirteenth cen- turj*. Its principles, which still retain their vitalitj-, are as follows: (a) Distinctness of the two sciences. — The independence of philosophj- in regard to theology, as in regard to anj- other science whatsoever, is onlj- an interpretation of this undeniable principle of sci- entific progress, as appUcable in the twentieth centurj- as it was in the thirteenth, that a rightlj- constituted science derives its formal object, its principles, and its constructive method from its o-n-n resources, and that, this being so, it cannot borrow from anj- other science without compromising its own right to e.xist, (b) Negative, not positive, material, not formal, sub- ordination of philosophj- in regard to theology. — This means that, while the two sciences keep their formal independence (the independence of the prin- ciples bj- which their investigations are guided), there are certain matters where philosophj- cannot con- tradict the solutions afforded bj- theology. The Scholastics of the Middle Ages justified this subordi- nation, being profoundlj- convinced that CathoUc dogma contains the infaUible word of God, the ex- pression of truth. Once a proposition, e. g. that two and two make four, has been accepted as certain, logic forbids anj- other science to form anj- conclusion subversive of that proposition. The material mutual subordination of the sciences is one of those laws out of which logic makes the indispensable guarantee of the unit J' of knowledge. "The truth dulj- demon- strated bj' one science serves as a beacon in an- other science." The certaint J- of a theorj-inchemistrj- imposes its acceptance on phj-sics, and the phjsicist who should go contrarj- to it would be out of his course. Similarlj-. the philosopher cannot contradict the certain data of theology. anj- more than he can contradict the certain conclusions of the indi\-idual sciences. To denj- this would be to denj- the conform- itj' of truth with truth, to contest the principle of contradiction, to surrender to a relati\-ism which is destructive of aU certitude. "It being supposed that