As we have learned in a previous post, science had in the past been synonymous with reason. It is therefore appropriate for us to review how ancient thinkers dealt with the relationship between reason and faith. The primary thinker on this issue has been St. Augustine. As we will see, his formulations have many echoes among the Rishonim; however, none of them have devoted themselves as single mindedly to formulating a comprehensive approach to this question. His approach remains the starting point for all future research on this topic.
Augustine posited four principles:
1.Unity of truth - that there is not one truth for religion and another one for reason.
This is a concept that places the two sources for knowledge, Religion and Reason on equal footing. Augustine himself felt that reason is subordinate to religion as a value, as we will shortly discuss, but also that the two work together and cannot produce different answers. It is not that there are two different truths, two unrelated domains, based on what starting assumptions you employ. No, Truth is one and it is not relative. Augustine rejected Fideism, an approach that either dismisses reason's ability to assist Faith, or outrightly banishes it as dangerous. What follows is that reason and religion are not separate spheres of knowledge, neither are they in conflict, but rather that they are co-operative in finding the Truth. Eight hundred years later St. Aquinas modified this idea somewhat by positing existence of knowledge that are beyond the sphere of reason and he called this kind of knowledge Theology. However even Theology uses reasoning for its itnernal functioning. Excepting theological truths, however, reason and religion are colleagues in producing the Truth.
The views of Rishonim on this topic, as I recall are discussed in the beginning of Tov Lavanon commentary to Chovos Halevovos.
An excellent expansion of Augustine's views is found in the recent encyclical, where the previous Pope puts on the hat of the philosopher, rather than theologian (he was an excellent philosopher, by the way), here.
2.The Doctrine of two Books -The Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature
3.Both books require careful interpretation. The distinction here is between the surface meaning and the true meaning of either book. The literal meaning is not what it says, the so-called naive literalism, it requires hard work and application of knowledge, experience and reconciliation in the light of all knowledge that bears on it. This means that out knowledge of the world plays some role in interpreting relgion, and, of course, vice-versa. The key to interpretation is the same one for Nature as for Scripture. We had previously discussed the Principle of Accommodation that helped Augustine resolve many apparent contradictions in Scripture and Rambam's acceptance of this principle of interpretation, and Augistine, unlike Jewish interpreters made liberla use of this principle. He, for example, interpreted Genesis literally in such a way as not involving precisely six actual days of creation. There is one point, though, that we can certainly accept. The point is that the work of resolution must be done, though it be hard and though it may be trying. One should not take refuge in pat answers or intellectually lazy general statements in order to avoid the hard work of reconciliation of Faith and Reason. The two work together and help one another. A similar approach to interpretation of Scripture is found in the introduction to Saadia's Gaon commentary on the Torah and on the Pslams.
4.Scientific knowledge is ancillary to the ultimate goal of human existence - to seek and to know God. Knowledge of the natural world reveal God's Glory and this is its primary purpose. We must remember this when attempting to reconcile Science and Religion so that it does not end up to be a sterile search for knowledge but for the Knowledge of God, and therefore a religious endeavor in essence.
Informed by this earliest, and influential approach, we will explore the issue farther in the coming posts.
Comments