In my last post, I made it a point to show that one of the distinguishing features in the universities during the High Catholic Age was their fascination with and commitment to studying the natural sciences. That being said, it almost must be made clear that there was also a clear philosophical understanding in the “medieval” universities that the study of the physical/natural world was not all there was to reality. As useful as the study of the material world is, it still can only take you so far. In fact, ever since the time of the Council of Nicaea (and probably before that) Christianity has always held that there are greater realities that the natural sciences simply are unable, indeed impotent, to address. What this means is that while the Christians of the High Catholic Age were fascinated by the study of the natural world, they were not proponents of naturalism: the philosophical worldview that states the natural world is all there is to reality. They were Christians who held the conviction that what gave the natural world meaning was in fact a greater reality, the supernatural existence of God.
Before I move on to discussing the philosophy of the High Catholic Age, though, I want to just provide some quotes in regards to this topic of the relationship between Christianity and science. These are quotes that I find very illuminating, but to be honest, I just didn’t know how to put them into the larger discussion. So take them for what they are worth. I like them (and yes, pages 275-276 in The Triumph of Christianity were really good!):
- “The truth is that not only did Christianity not impede the rise of science; it was essential to it, which is why science arose only in the Christian West!” (Rodney Stark, Triumph of Christianity 275)
- “…science is limited to statement about natural and material reality, about things that are at least in principle observable. Hence there are entire realms of discourse that science is unable to address, including such matters as the existence of God. Nor can there be a physics of miracles.” (Rodney Stark, Triumph of Christianity 276)
- “Just as there were no ‘Dark Ages,’ there was no ‘Scientific Revolution.’ Rather, the notion of a Scientific Revolution was invented to discredit the medieval church by claiming that science burst forth in full bloom (thus owing no debts to prior Scholastic scholars) only when a weakened Christianity no longer could suppress it.” (Rodney Stark, Triumph of Christianity 276)
- “…the great scientific achievements of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were produced by a group of scholars notable for their piety, who were based in Christian universities, and whose brilliant achievements were carefully built upon an invaluable legacy of centuries of brilliant Scholastic scholarship.” (Rodney Stark, Triumph of Christianity 276)
- “…science arose in Europe because of the widespread ‘faith in the possibility of science…derivative from medieval theology.’” (Alfred North Whitehead, Lowell Lectures at Harvard, 1925)
- “The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, form the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably all, institution.” (John Heilborn, The Sun in the Church)
The Revolution in Philosophy During the High Catholic Age
This brings us to another feature of the universities of the High Catholic Age: the revolution in philosophy. Throughout Europe in the Byzantine Age, learning was largely restricted to the monasteries. Indeed, it was the tireless work of monks that preserved classical learning. During the High Catholic Age, though, partly due to the cultural explosion owed to the Crusades and most certainly due to the rise of the university, the classical learning that the monks had preserved was now made more readily available to the larger flocks of students who began attending the universities. With renewed interest in the philosophies of both Plato and Aristotle, the universities cultivated a philosophical revolution that has effected Western civilization ever since.
Just as the Christian philosophers of the Byzantine Age had engaged pagan philosophy and had actually used it to argue for the truth of Christianity, the Christian scholars of the High Catholic Age further used the works of pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle to, as Rodney Stark put it, “demolish the intellectual foundations of the pagan culture that produced them” (TC 73). In fact, “…it was the logical development of Aristotelian ideas (primarily by his medieval Scholastic admirers) that provided the most powerful and systematic intellectual foundation for traditional Western religion and morality—and for that matter, for science, morality, politics, and theology in general—that has ever existed” (TC 52).
Faith Leads to Reason? Reason Leads to Faith?
The Scholastics of the High Catholic Age also wrestled with fundamental concepts concerning rational inquiry and epistemology (i.e. the theory of knowledge: how we come to understanding). Like Augustine before him, the Benedictine monk and philosopher Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 AD) emphasized the foundational aspect of faith in the pursuit of theological understanding. Augustine had famously said, “I believe in order to understand.” Anselm echoed that sentiment.
To clarify, what this means is that faith is not fundamentally a rational enterprise. That is not to say that faith is irrational, but rather that faith is the presuppositional force or worldview that guides one’s attempt to understand the world around him. Or more simply put, one does not come to faith through rationalistic/intellectual inquiry alone. No one can be convinced on rational grounds alone that there is a God. Faith is ultimately something that goes beyond mere intellect, and therefore is fundamentally existential. Nevertheless, Anselm insisted “that reason and investigation were crucial to verifying Christian teaching. …Study creation…and one would learn about its Creator” (Vincent Carroll, Christianity on Trial 71).
On the other end of the spectrum was the scholastic philosopher Peter Abelard (1079-1142 AD), who argued that theology was first and foremost a scientific discipline, and that therefore it was a careful, rational, and systematic quest for understanding that led to faith. If Anselm said that faith precedes understanding, Abelard said that understanding precedes faith. Abelard sought to provide logical reasons regarding theology and faith that could satisfy the human intellect.
In reality, we need to see that neither Anselm nor Abelard were completely right, and neither were they completely wrong. Faith and reason can never be neatly divided to where one can clearly be seen as “before” or “after” the other. Yes, reason and understanding often leads one to faith, or at least a much firmer foundation of faith, but at the same time one’s faith commitment, whatever it may be, does obviously affect and guide one’s quest for understanding. Perhaps we should say that both are in a symbiotic relationship within every person’s soul, and are in constant dialogue with each other as that person lives his life.
In the next post or two, we will look at one of the most, if not the most, influential philosopher of not only of the High Catholic Age, but perhaps of all time: Thomas Aquinas. Fasten your seat belts, the ride is going to get a little bumpy!
