Philosophy as Preparation for Faith
The story of the thief on the cross demonstrates that winsome apologetics, sound philosophy, and robust theology are not necessary agents to bring someone to saving faith in Christ. Yet, it is true that certain philosophical paradigms make it harder for someone to recognize the truth of Christian theism, while other paradigms make it easier for someone to recognize the truth. What do I mean by this?
Each culture has certain background assumptions. These assumptions can include anything from “Supernatural explanations are inherently suspect” to “Each human being is equal in worth.” These assumptions can gain sway for a myriad of reasons; the geography, the press, the schools, the arts, etc., of a particular culture can all influence the assumptions of a culture.
For example, we live in a sexually promiscuous culture, here in the United States. It can fairly be said that influential thinkers (Freud, Kinsey), widespread materialistic sex education in public schools, the capabilities of the internet, the capacity for birth control, and the glorification of sex and beauty in film, among other factors, all interact with each other and help produce the sexually promiscuous culture we experience today. And a sexually promiscuous culture reacts and responds to the Bible differently than a sexually chaste culture would, even if both have a majority of unsaved people. A sexually promiscuous culture has a tough time accepting pretty much any biblical command regarding sexual ethics, but particularly those that encourage modesty, fidelity, and heterosexuality.
My overall point is not about sex though. The paradigm of materialism in the West provides another stumbling block for those who hear the gospel. Claims of divinity are inherently suspect or even repulsive to many Westerners. My overall point is that certain paradigms more readily and comprehensively “choke the word” of the gospel, and therefore Christians should promote paradigms of thinking in their homes, churches, and schools that permeate the culture with better background assumptions, while at the same time not backing down at all in the frequency and intensity of straightforward preaching and gospel presentation.
For example, the paradigm of Platonism is much more conducive to the acceptance of Christian truth than the paradigms that dominate today. Plato argued that the universe is designed, that the material world does not give us the highest goods, that eternal truths exist, that genuine happiness comes from pursuing the Good, etc. Platonism was one of the dominant paradigms in the culture where the early church began. As a result, the existence of God and the capacity for truth and virtue were quite readily accepted by many people. Frederick Copleston says as much regarding the church fathers: “Hellenic philosophy they tended to regard as a propaedeutic to Christianity, so that their main interest in treating of it was to point out the anticipation of Christian truth which they saw therein contained and the aberrations from truth which were also clear to them” (Volume II, p. 38).
Furthermore, as Copleston also shows, it is clear that philosophy helped prepare St. Augustine for the Christian faith. Since Augustine is perhaps the most influential theologian in history, this should not be taken lightly. “In other words, the function of neo-Platonism at this period was to render it possible for Augustine to see the reasonableness of Christianity, and he began to read the New Testament again, particularly the writings of St. Paul” (Volume II, p. 43). Obviously, Christ is the center of Augustine’s thinking, but this doesn’t negate the fact that Platonism helped give him categories to accept and understand Christ: “His reading of neo-Platonic works was an instrument in the intellectual conversion of Augustine, while his moral conversion, from the human viewpoint, was prepared by the sermons of Ambrose and the words of Simplicianus and Pontitianus, and confirmed and sealed by the New Testament” (Volume II, p. 43). If Augustine hadn’t had this philosophical preparation, he would have likely come to faith more slowly and with more difficulty. And I’d like to stress here that this doesn’t contradict at all the reality that God is the sole, sovereign agent in regenerating a fallen person’s heart. As Paul or Copleston might say, I speak in a human way from a human point of view.
Augustine is not unique in this matter. 20th century American philosopher Mortimer J Adler, by his own testimony, asserts that a proper understanding of the role of philosophy and theology in the acquisition of knowledge, as well as a confidence in the demonstration of the existence of God, constituted a preamble to his Christian faith (Rearview Mirror, p. 270). Again, because salvation depends ultimately on God, it is completely possible to be saved without having a solid philosophical paradigm beforehand (many true Christians don’t). But the background assumptions of Thomism and Aristotelianism helped Adler in his acceptance of Christian truth. And, arguably, if there were more like Adler writing and teaching in the world, then some stumbling blocks would be removed for many people before they came to faith. To put it simply, a prevalence of bad thinking makes it harder to accept good thinking. I hasten to add that the gospel isn’t merely good thinking. The gospel is a message that is supposed to penetrate our minds, our hearts, and our wills. But good philosophical thinking would be a much healthier preparation for this message than poor philosophical thinking.
Professor Carl Trueman eloquently makes a similar argument in his discussion of the “social imaginary.” Borrowing from Charles Taylor, Trueman defines the social imaginary as “the myriad beliefs, practices, normative expectations, and even implicit assumptions that members of a society share and that shape their daily lives. It is not so much a conscious philosophy of life as a set of intuitions and practices” (Modern Self, p. 37). I’ll tie this in with my overall point: the social imaginary is roughly equivalent to the background assumptions I’ve mentioned above. The social imaginary of Ancient Greece was heavily influenced by Platonism. As a result, certain truths of Christian theism came more readily to pagans. The social imaginary of 21st century America is heavily influenced by Darwinism, Marxism, nihilism, and relativism. As a result, many truths of Christian theism are strange or repulsive to modern pagans. Most Ancient Greeks were not scholars of Plato, and neither are most modern Americans scholars of Darwin, Marx, and Freud. However, in Ancient Greece, Platonism was influential enough such that even those who had never read Plato were naturally inclined to the background assumptions of Platonism. And, in modern America, Darwinism, Marxism, etc. are influential enough such that even those who have never read Darwin or Marx are naturally inclined to the background assumptions of these philosophies.
Christians less inclined to philosophy may scoff at the idea of putting effort into philosophical preparation to faith, since men like Augustine and Adler are exceptions. Indeed, they are exceptions. But we should still pursue philosophical preparation for at least two reasons: (1) We should all want bright thinkers on the side of truth. And robust philosophical preparation helps such thinkers come to a saving faith. (2) Bright, exceptional thinkers are often the most influential. They, in turn, help create the social imaginary that guides the rest of the masses. If you can win over an Augustine, an Adler, a C S Lewis, or an Edward Feser with the assistance of philosophical training, then they in turn may influence the good thinking and ultimate conversion of thousands or millions of people.
Am I arguing for a return to Platonism or Aristotelianism? No. But I am arguing that Christians should eagerly take whatever good philosophical thinking they can find from Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, etc. Christians should be the best philosophers, and good philosophical thinking helps defeat bad philosophical thinking. When the likes of Hume, Kant, or Darwin come around, at least some Christians should have the philosophical tools to spar with them. The Bible is our only infallible guide, and the Bible should inform all spheres of our thinking. But we should also readily take advantage of any good we can find from bright, insightful thinkers. Doing so may just help win souls to Christ.
References
Christian Standard Bible. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers (2017).
Adler, Mortimer J. A Second Look in the Rearview Mirror. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing (1992).
Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy: Volume II. Westminster, MD: The Newman Press (1950).
Trueman, Carl. The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. Wheaton, IL: Crossway (2020).
