Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages
Etienne Gilson (Scribner, 1938)

114 p. First reading.
Posted 21 July 2006.


In this small book, the great medievalist Etienne Gilson provides an historical overview of the relationship between reason and revelation through the medieval period, considering first those who insisted on the primacy of faith, then those who maintained the primacy of reason, and finally the synthesis wrought by Thomas Aquinas. The book closes with a consideration of the forces which dissolved Thomas' union, and of the relevance of the topic today.

First, then, the tradition upholding the primacy of faith runs in two streams: those convinced of the self-sufficiency of faith and irrelevance of philosophy, as represented by Tertullian's comment 'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?'; and also those who take faith as foundational, and yet adopt philosophy and reason in the effort to understand more fully the things believed (Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventure).  The former regard philosophy as vain, dangerous, corrupting, a distraction from simple faith; they insist on the importance of devotion and obedience at the expense of inquiry and rational reflection; what they value is admirable and important, but their position lacks balance.

The second group, the Augustinians, start from revelation and move on toward reason. "Understanding is the reward of faith." Characteristic of this group are the myriad ways in which they have sought to understand the faith throughout the centuries, in each age turning the current philosophical tools to the task. "Those who can understand, should understand," they would say. A weakness, however, is that their investigations carry no convincing pressure to a non-believer. Philosophy and theology are so closely related in this view that neither carries much weight outside the religious community.

Another group insisted on the primacy of reason over faith: the rationalists. The medieval exemplar of this view is the Muslim philosopher Averroes.  He held that philosophy reveals plainly what religion teaches rhetorically and poetically. Apparent conflicts are to be resolved by reinterpreting the sacred text; those who can engage in philosophy no longer have any need for religion. Philosophy and theology are separate spheres and have no commerce with one another, even to the point of teaching contrary 'truths'. This school, in the guise of secular rationalism, is of course very familiar today.

Finally, we have the harmonization of the two realms in the thought of St. Thomas. He affirmed both reason and faith -- each benefits from the other and both are needed. He distinguishes them sharply: philosophy is derived from natural reason, theology is based on revelation. Both philosopher and theologian embrace all of reality. Theology, to be true to its task, must call on all genuine knowledge. Philosophy, for its part, cannot comfortably neglect theology, for in all its investigations it comes up against the mystery of being, the sign of I AM. Faith, being based on the Word of God, may judge philosophy.

Thomas' ideas have never really lived. Suspicions of scholastic philosophy influenced men like Erasmus and Luther, and eventually the entire ediface, good and bad, was abandoned. Yet it is still there.

---

Back to Book Note Index

Back to Books