Is Orthodoxy anti-rationalistic?

[Adrian Martin]

The following is excerpted from a book whose author claims that "human accomplishment" came more from the West because of the Individualism and Rationalism that originated in the Scholastics:


It was a theology that empowered the individual acting as an individual as no other philosophy or religion had ever done before. The potentially revolutionary message was realized more completely in one part of Christendom, the Catholic West, than in the Orthodox East. The crucial difference was that Roman Catholicism developed a philosophical and artistic humanism typified, and to a great degree engendered, by Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274). Aquinas made the case, eventually adopted by the Church, that human intelligence is a gift from God, and that to apply human intelligence to understanding the world is not an affront to God but is pleasing to him.

Of course, this implies that Orthodoxy does not think human intelligence is a gift from God, or that applying it to understanding the world is pleasing to him. What do you think? One comment on the blog in question went:


In order to see the Orthodox failure to fully appreciate systematic reasoning, one need only read their objections to Scholasticism as “rationalistic.” It isn’t a matter of what they say they accept, but of what they in fact vehemently reject. Contrast the theological methodologies of Scholasticism and the Orthodox, and you will see that the place granted to systematic reasoning differs.

Needless to say, I think it's ridiculous to say that vehemently rejecting the use of reason in the theological arena would equal to a rejection of it in general, but what do you think?

[Alex Michael Rusanen]

We do believe that human intelligence is a gift from God; however the Fathers tend to minimize it's purpose on theological matters, because the human mind is regarded as fallen and corrupt, and thus unable to perceive the the realms of the spirit. Theology is not to be perceived through the dianoia, but through the nous.

There were some great secular philosophers in the east as well, and we must not forget that it was the exile greeks who inspired the renaissance which would turn out to be a great step towards the scientific zeal of later centuries.

And yes, I think there are quite vehement anti-rationalistic tendencies in the Orthodox Church even today. - For the better or worse, I don't know...

[Ryan]

Would Galileo have been treated the same way in the Byzantine Empire? I can't prove it, but I seriously doubt it.

[Sean M.]

From a scientific perspective, i don't really know if the East has lagged behind the West in terms of recent discoveries. From a theological perspective, i think the orthodox church also tries to expound on traditional church teachings just as the Western church has done. There is obviously differences in the acceptance of the authority of church councils.

[Misha]

Western rationalism,through the applied philosophy and science,is about to destroy the whole planet.
Human race has the ability,for the first time in known history, to eliminate life from earth just with a few clicks.
What westerners call rationalism i think it's the nietzschean "proud madness".

[Owen Jones]

I think it's very important for Orthodox not to allow themselves to be sucker punched on this issue. What many triumphalist Catholics argue is that science as we know it today, i.e. applied science, would not have existed without Catholic theology, because it depends on a faith in a rationally ordered material world. But this idea goes back at least as far as Euclid. And when one reads the treatises of St. Gregory the Theologian, you have a very high degree of refined rational argument. The problem is that, just as American protestants believe that Christianity started in the 15th century, many RC's are led to believe that nothing happened worth noting until Aquinas.

[Owen Jones]

btw, according to my pt prof in seminary, Aquinas believed that he had to be fully accord in all of his writings and ideas with Dionysius the Aereopogite. Dionysius was his primary influence. He then used Aristotelian method to draw out all of the implications of Dionysius. So let the RC's put that in their pipe and smoke it!

[Anthony]

The writers quoted at the beginning of the thread seem to have missed the irony that these "discoverers of rationalism and individualism" were also the builders of a system that became a byword for intellectual tyranny. By their fruits shall you know them...


And yes, I think there are quite vehement anti-rationalistic tendencies in the Orthodox Church even today. - For the better or worse, I don't know...

I have to agree, and will stick my neck out and say that I don't think it is in general a particularly good thing. I would be interested to hear any ideas as to where it came from. It doesn't strike me as particularly Patristic, or indeed "Byzantine".



Would Galileo have been treated the same way in the Byzantine Empire? I can't prove it, but I seriously doubt it.

There was a thread on this a couple of years ago which led me to do a bit of reading on the net - none of which I can now find. But from what I remember, the main reaction of the Greek church was that this upstart westerner was doing something that had been tried and rejected by the great philosophers of ancient Greece. It should be remembered here that Galileo's theory did not accommodate the facts convincingly until Kepler (later) showed that planets move in ellipses not circles.

The church was a bit preoccupied with other things at the time, as it was under the Turkish captivity. They seem to have underestimated the revolutionary nature of Galileo's evidence. But I don't think that those Greeks that adopted his views (e.g. Greeks studying in Italy) got into trouble with the church as a result.

[Ryan]

I don't doubt Galileo would have faced disagreement from the Church. I'm just wondering if he would have been forced to recant his views by something like the Inquisition.

[Ken McRae]

btw, according to my pt prof in seminary, Aquinas believed that he had to be fully accord in all of his writings and ideas with Dionysius the Aereopogite. Dionysius was his primary influence. He then used Aristotelian method to draw out all of the implications of Dionysius. So let the RC's put that in their pipe and smoke it!

According to Catholic tradition, 'the Angelic Doctor' discontinued his 'Summa' because of his having attained 'beatific vision;' after which he viewed all his theological writings not as gold, or even silver, but mere "straw;" destined to be consumed by purgatorial fire. So much for the 'Summa,' I say. Let the RC's attend carefully to the mature and fixed judgment of their own highly esteemed Angelic Doctor, concerning the 'merits' of his own theological 'Summa:' It is but "straw" fit to be burnt, he says, by virtue of all comparision to true mystical theoria!

[Nicolaj]

Rationalism:


1. Reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action.
2. Philosophy The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.

The official definition of this word......

Where is Jesus left in this picture, where is faith, where is my experience with my heavenly Father?

It is not Rational, so it is NOT!

Just my 2cents.. Nicolaj

[Andreas Moran]

It might not be quite right to describe the Orthodox faith as 'anti-rationalistic' since, as the Holy Fathers say, God gave us reason which we are expected to use, and we offer the Divine Liturgy as a 'reasonable service'. But our faith is not rational: if it were, it would not be true.

[Owen Jones]

These are not very good definitions to work from for a variety of reasons. I guess the best way of looking at rationalism is that it is an ideology that is based on the idea of an immanentized mind or psyche which can be objectified.

[Owen Jones]

So what should my faith be? Irrational? The rational realm is in accord with faith. It just isn't the highest realm. The noetic is.

[Anthony]

I take it that "anti-rationalistic" can mean at least two things: (i) opposition to the use of reason; (ii) opposition to the philosophy of rationalism. Pretty obviously, I hope, my critical comments about anti-rationalism were meant in the first sense.

[Peter S.]

I dont think any philosophy can accept Jesus ressurected and all this implies. If you are getting too rational it is not possible to believe in the Ressurection, but God has given us reason so that we can believe in it, the Truth, which is above rationality as we know it.

Peter

[Owen Jones]

Yes, but that is not really the issue raised by Adrian who started the thread. The issue here is that human accomplishment, presumably in the past 500 years or so with respect to science, industry, and the widespread prosperity that has ensued in Western countries, is a direct result of the rationalism of Catholic Scholasticism.

I think there are a number of problems with this conclusion that have been touched on, but one would have to show that, absent the Muslim conquest, these same developments would not have occurred in the East Catholic realm, and of course there is no way to know that. One would also have to allow for the fact that science, medicine, the arts, etc. were advanced in the Eastern realm long before we began to see these same advances in Western Europe.

But arguably the whole idea of the rationality of the universe is a Greek idea, a classical Greek idea going back 2500 years. It is laid out in the Timeaus which is the most often non-Biblical book quoted by the Greek Fathers.

And has been pointed out, there are a number of problems set up by Thomistic "rationalism," having primarily to do with the trend toward objectifying theological and philosophical concepts, and the system building that goes along with that, and so in time, although I would not altogether blame Aquinas for this, you have the great systematizers of the modern era, from Isaac Newton, to the major ideological systematizers. Ideology became a growth industry in Western Europe, and was imported by force into the East.

What is needed to reverse this is not a claim that Christianity is anti-rationalistic, anti-scientific -- we have been through this issue quite a lot on Monachos -- but that it is noetic science, and therefore the true meaning and experience of noesis has to be recovered, in our Church life, and in Church "apologetics" if you will, and in a rigorous engagement with the intellectual environment.

[Christopher]

I hope this applies to the question.

From Patristic Theology, Protopresbyter John Romanides:

[...] rules of logic are valid, in so far as they are valid, only for God’s creation. The rules of logic or philosophy are not applicable with God. There is not any philosophical system or system of logic that can be applied to God. The Fathers consider those who think that they can approach God via pure mathematics to be terribly naive, simply because there is no similarity between created and uncreated. (p.85)

and

Of course, there is nothing wrong with someone studying philosophy as long as he rejects philosophy’s teachings on the existence and nature of God. After all, philosophy trains the human mind. This is what all the hesychastic Fathers say, including Basil the Great, John Chrysostom[os], and Gregory of Nyssa, the Church Father whose ability to reason like a philosopher is unsurpassed. And if you read St. Dionysius the Areopagite, you will see that he even follows this same line of thought. So we can conclude that there is nothing wrong with someone spending his time with philosophy in order to train his mind, but it is sheer stupidity to accept the teachings of philosophy when it comes to theological subjects. (Chapter 61. - p. 229)

. . .

Forgive me .
Pater Christopher

[Andreas Moran]

I dont think any philosophy can accept Jesus ressurected and all this implies. If you are getting too rational it is not possible to believe in the Ressurection, but God has given us reason so that we can believe in it, the Truth, which is above rationality as we know it.

A famous English judge once said that if, as a judge sitting in court, he heard the evidence for the Resurrection, he would be forced to conclude that it was true. (Sorry - once a lawyer always a lawyer!)

[Fabio Lins]

A famous English judge once said that if, as a judge sitting in court, he heard the evidence for the Resurrection, he would be forced to conclude that it was true. (Sorry - once a lawyer always a lawyer!)

Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" builds on this idea. The author gathers the evidence for the historical ressurrection following rules to prove something in court based on his experience as an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune:


Strobel's book is an excellent place to start. He presents interviews with several Christian apologetics that involve issues related to the veracity of the Biblical account of Christ, the Son of God.

The issues are as follows:

The trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts.
Historical evidences for Christ outside of the Bible.
Archaeology and the Life of Christ
The "Jesus Seminar" account of the life of Christ.
Did Jesus claim to be equal with God?
Is Jesus the promised scripture's Messiah?
Did Jesus really die on the cross?
Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

This book was one the works influential in my conversion to Christianity.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Pack-6/dp/0310226279/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219965129&sr=1-2

[Fabio Lins]

Also, these sites may help bring some actual facts to which otherwise would be speculation. The Christian Roman Empire (aka Byzantium) had a thriving cultural, philosophical and scientific life. The West, though, has downplayed it for a number of reasons, from mere lack of data to RC-Protestant or Humanistic bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_scientists
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Medieval/MedievalGreece.html
http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/10/en/pl/pn/pnd1.html

[Owen Jones]

By the time that the Church Fathers were using the term philosophy, the context had changed to mean schools of thought. There were different philosophical schools of thought. This is a deformation of classical philosophy which is concerned with exactly the same theological questions as the Old and New Testaments, only presented in a different way. Plato is very clear that philosophy is a revelation from God. Then Christians say, yah, but it was a pagan God. So what? That was 500 years before Christ! Why do we always want ancient Greeks, or ancient Israelites for that matter, to act like Christians????

And let's not forget that the Timeaus is the second most quoted text by the Greek Fathers.

[Owen Jones]

Romanides made the exact same mistake regarding his treatment of classical philosophy that he accuses Christians of making regarding Christian theology. He treats it as if it were merely a system rather than representational of experience. The idea that someone should only read philosophy today to just "train the mind" misses the point, unless of course by training the mind one captures the spirit of classical philosophy which is to transform the mind to bring it into harmony with God's mind.

[Owen Jones]

What most people mean today by rationalism is 18th century deistic rationalism. In that sense of course Orthodoxy is not rationalistic.

[Owen Jones]

This brief quote from Bernard Suzanne says it all:

The Theætetus is meant to show the limits of what we nowadays call "science" or "scientific knowledge", and the central part of the dialogue shows that that kind of philosophy is no more to be commended than the pseudo-philosophy of the rhetoricians à la Isocrates.


I recommend the Theatetus to any Orthodox Christian grappling with Christian theology and the subject of truth.

[Christopher]

Romanides made the exact same mistake regarding his treatment of classical philosophy that he accuses Christians of making regarding Christian theology. He treats it as if it were merely a system rather than representational of experience. The idea that someone should only read philosophy today to just "train the mind" misses the point, unless of course by training the mind one captures the spirit of classical philosophy which is to transform the mind to bring it into harmony with God's mind.

I am curious to read the [quote] where Romanides says this, specifically.

Thank you.

[Owen Jones]

I am simply referring back to an earlier post on this thread regarding Romanides and philosophy. I was assuming it was accurate.

[Christopher]

I am simply referring back to an earlier post on this thread regarding Romanides and philosophy. I was assuming it was accurate.
Accurately paraphrased by yourself, or what Fr. Romanides meant, specifically?
Thank you.

[Owen Jones]

I haven't paraphrased anything, Father. I was responding to your quotes from Fr. Romanides. The quotations I assume are accurate. They are very clear in their meaning and do not require much in the way of interpretation. I believe Fr. Romanides to be either misinformed, or else he has made the mistake that he accuses Christians of making regarding Orthodox theology, as I understand some of his writings, that it avoids the experiential basis and meaning. Romanides is somewhat infamous for arguing that Orthodox theology is not a system of anything, but something akin to a medical cure for a gross dysfunctionality in the body which he term a neuro-biological illness -- i.e. religion.

One would think, based on that assessment, that Romanides would have a clearer understanding of the therapeutic purpose and value of classical philosophy. And yet he seems to reduce it to a system of logical syllogisms and arguments.

Classical philosophy in any case ought not be judged exclusively by Christian standards but by what it sets out to accomplish. A scientist does not criticize Newton for what he did not know but acknowledges the contributions that he made at the time. And likewise, we should not denigrate classical philosophy so gratuitously, nor should we judge it out of ignorance.

Let's take a poll. How many people on Monachos have actually read the Theatetus? The Theatetus clearly refutes the notion that philosophy is "rationalistic."

[Fabio Lins]

In reply to Owen Jones last reply.

Still, the scholastic philosophy by claiming that "philosophy should be the servant of theology" and the revelation is to give the entire bases over which philosophy is to organize into logical discourses has not, in your opinion, lead western philosophy to loose even this therapeutical approach classical philosophy had?

[Owen Jones]

Both classical philosophy and classical Christian theology have lost their therapeutic approach, given how they are currently employed. More to the point, people have deformed both by taking them to be logical discourses rather than what they are -- the erotic response of the soul to God's presence.