Faithfully Seeking Understanding: Selected Writings of Johannes Kuhn

The False Choice between Faith and Rational Understanding

45 The Fa l se Choice bet ween Fa i th a n d R ationa l Un der sta n ding ThQ 21 (1839): 382–421 This essay situates itself within a nexus of controversy treated in the general introduction to this volume. We will refrain from repeating those points. It should be noted that theological discussions of faith and reason dominated an intellectual agenda stemming from an Enlightenment concern with liberation from ecclesial authority. Regardless of whether one agrees with their conclusions , the paths taken by Kant, Hegel, and Schleiermacher constitute deliberate and serious attempts to address how to square religion with reason. Kuhn addresses this problem by returning to older, pre-modern formulations . He also concedes that theology depends on revealed truths, which makes it a different kind of knowledge, but he does not relapse into a position of irrationality. Kuhn disapproves of the movement that seeks to promote Tertullian’s famous slogan: credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd ), which he sees as more of an aberration than a true representation of the Christian position. The concern about how faith and reason are related did not dissolve for Kuhn or the Catholic Church. What has changed, however, is that secular learning has turned to a post-modern outlook that, while not turning its back on reason, at least questions foundational assumptions and the hegemony of reason. These developments have led John Paul II and Benedict XVI to re- 46 C Faith and Rational Understanding turn to the question of what Athens has to do with Jerusalem. The essay below sheds light on an earlier attempt to navigate between positions that, even if well-intentioned, would undermine the possibility for faith and reason to fortify one another in a meaningful way. C Theology and philosophy are the sciences that have the deepest effect on and most profound interest for humanity. The question of how faith and rational understanding [Wissen] relate rests on the border of these fields. either field can resolve the problem by resorting to its own method and starting from its own independent principles, and each has the right to do so. The conclusions they reach will depend on the principles and methods they employ. For theology, faith is the point of departure and the authoritative principle prior to rational understanding. Therefore rational understanding must be joined to faith: credo, ut intelligam (i believe, so that i might understand). Philosophy reverses the relationship and starts with rational understanding. From understanding it moves on to faith and unites faith to rational understanding: intelligo, ut credam (i understand, that i may believe). now what is true for philosophy must be true for theology as well. This sentiment was voiced by representatives of the Christian faith, who in so doing conceded more to rational understanding than philosophy nowadays grants to faith. under the guidance of leo X at the Fifth lateran Council in 1513, the Council Fathers unanimously rejected making a distinction between philosophical and theological truth. They also rejected the idea that one could say of a sentence that it is true philosophically, but false theologically, and vice versa.1 as a result theological and philosophical formulae need to express one and the same thing. This remains the case even though much contemporary theology may want to abandon philosophy. it is also worth remembering that philosophy has the right to protect rational understanding when determining how it relates to faith. tertullian’s credo quia absurdum [i believe because it is absurd] has recently been echoed;2 however, such a statement 1 Session Viii of the council states: “Since something true does not in the least contradict another truth” (dh, 1441). The 1513 council opposed claims that other sentences could be philosophically but not theologically true. 2 See Julius Frauenstadt, Die Menschwerdung Gottes nach ihrer Möglichkeit, Wirklichkeit und Faith and Rational Understanding C 47 does not signify an objective maxim to be followed, but only the subjective opinion of the theologians who waver concerning rational understanding. likewise the reverse claim: intelligo, quia non credo [i understand, because i do not believe] can only reflect the opinion of a philosopher expressing annoyance with faith. Faith and rational understanding are not identical, but they do express real and necessary moments of human cognition. Faith does not receive acceptance [Anerkennung] solely in the realm of theology, and rational understanding does not receive acceptance solely in the...