Faith seeks obedience, philosophy seeks truth

Separating faith and philosophy

Benedictus de Spinoza 1632 · 1677God, that is, Nature: everything follows by necessity.

What it claims

Between faith (theology) and philosophy there is neither commerce nor kinship. Neither should serve the other: each rules over her own domain.

Why

Faith aims at obedience and philosophy at truth: with different goals, neither should rule the other.

The same idea through history

Galileo Galilei1615Galileo already separates what Scripture says (salvation) from what nature says (science), but he still holds that Scripture is true: he seeks to interpret it.

Benedictus de Spinoza1670The version presented here: Spinoza goes further. Faith does not need true dogmas, only dogmas that move people to act well.

Benedictus de Spinoza1670In the same book, Spinoza draws the political consequence of this separation: freedom to think and to speak.Stephen Jay Gould1997Gould also defends two separate domains, but for another reason: science deals with facts, religion with values.

In short

"Faith seeks obedience, philosophy seeks truth" is an argument by Benedictus de Spinoza (Theological-Political Treatise, ch. 14-15 (1670), 1670) on the question "Should we believe without proof?" (answer: two separate domains). Its claim: Between faith (theology) and philosophy there is neither commerce nor kinship. Neither should serve the other: each rules over her own domain. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P4). AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 2 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

Theological-Political Treatise, ch. 14-15 (1670)

Valid with an implicit premise

In the 17th century people debate who should rule: reason or Scripture. Spinoza, in a book published without his name in 1670 and soon banned, answers that the question is badly put. He defines faith by its aim: obedience, that is justice and charity toward one's neighbour. He defines philosophy by its own: truth. Two different aims, two different foundations: they can neither command nor contradict each other.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.

Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Without the implicit premise: Without P4, the computer finds a case where faith aims at obedience, philosophy at truth, and yet there is commerce between them (for instance, if faith had to rest on philosophical truths about God).

With P4, the conclusion follows. Without it, one can accept that faith aims at obedience and philosophy at truth, and still think that truth also matters to faith (for instance, that one obeys better a God one knows well). P4 is the decisive step: it assumes that different aims are enough to separate two domains. That is also where his opponents attack: for them, Scripture says true things about God, and reason must take them into account. Note that Spinoza does not despise faith: he judges its doctrine salutary for a state, where people must live in peace. He does not judge it false, he judges it to belong to another order.

Analogy. A highway code and a physics course both speak of cars. The first aims to make you drive without accident, the second to make you understand motion. You can follow the code without knowing any physics, and physics has no need to correct the code. But the analogy has a limit: Spinoza also says that faith has dogmas about God, which some would judge true or false.

Objections

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

Maimonides 1190 · attacks the conclusion

According to Spinoza himself, Maimonides is the first, among the Pharisees, to declare openly that Scripture must be made to agree with reason. When a verse about God clashes with reason, it is interpreted otherwise. For him, faith and philosophy thus aim at the same truth, and reason guides the reading.

Spinoza replies

Spinoza

Spinoza answers that Scripture teaches no philosophical matters but only piety, and that everything it contains is adapted to the people's understanding. Whoever wants to make it agree with philosophy will thus attribute to the prophets many ideas they never had, even in a dream, and will misinterpret their thought.

The debate goes on (our summary) The disagreement concerns what Scripture is. For Spinoza, it is a text of obedience, written for the people. For Maimonides and his heirs, it is also a true teaching about God, which the wise can decipher. A defender of Maimonides will say that interpreting is not forcing the text, and that Spinoza himself assumes a rational reading of Scripture. (Our summary.)

Where the debate stands (our summary)Open point: the debate concerns the nature of Scripture (a lesson in obedience or a true teaching about God), and each side thinks the other does violence to the text.

Rabbi Judah Alpakhar attacks the conclusion

According to Spinoza, who criticises him, Alpakhar wants to avoid Maimonides's error by going the opposite way: reason must submit to Scripture and give way entirely. What Scripture expressly teaches is true on its sole authority. For him, philosophy is thus the handmaid of faith, not a separate domain.

Spinoza replies

Spinoza

Spinoza asks whether one submits reason to Scripture with reason's help or without it, blindly. In the second case one acts without judgment. In the first, one accepts Scripture under the command of reason alone, and would not accept it if it were contrary to reason.

Alvin Plantinga 1983

Summary: Plantinga argues that belief in God can be reasonable without being inferred from other evidence: it can be a basic belief, like belief in other minds. Spinoza's dilemma assumes that assent to Scripture must rest on reasons, which this thesis denies.

Where the debate stands (our summary)The basic disagreement: are reasons needed to accept a religious authority? Spinoza says yes, defenders of a faith that goes beyond proof say no, or that such reasons need not be philosophical. See the question "Should we believe without proof?" (camp "Faith goes beyond").

Averroes 1179 · attacks premise 4

Averroes holds that the revealed Law and philosophy do not contradict each other, since truth agrees with truth and bears witness to it. They are thus not without kinship: they say the same truth, in different forms, and reason can say how to read the text.

no reply

see the argument

We have not yet found a direct reply by Spinoza in the texts.

The debate goes on (our summary) Spinoza does not mention Averroes in these chapters. His criticism targets those who want to bend Scripture to the laws of philosophy (Maimonides): he reproaches them for attributing to the prophets ideas they did not have. It thus reaches Averroes's project, but it is not a written answer to his text. (Our summary.)

Where the debate stands (our summary)Averroes and Spinoza agree that faith and reason do not oppose each other. They differ on the relation: one truth in two forms (Averroes), or two aims with no kinship (Spinoza).