Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages

by Étienne Gilson

Gilson describes two “spiritual families” (philosophies of theology) of the Middle Ages. “The first… was made up of those theologians according to whom Revelation had been given to men as a substitute for all other knowledge, including science, ethics and metaphysics.” (5) “Since God has spoken to us, it is no longer necessary for us to think.” (6)

He calls this type of thinker a member of the “Tertullian Family.” Although he doesn’t seem to favor this view, he does make a case for it on pages 6-7. I’m sympathetic to this view; Let God be true and every man a liar. If I could only have human knowledge or Divine Revelation, I’d take Revelation. But it’s a false dichotomy.

“The partisans of exclusive otherworldliness” (14)

The other viewpoint is held by the “Augustinian Family,” who start with revelation, then reason about it. I like this. It is Luther, realizing what Romans 1:17 means. Or the development of the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Two Natures of Christ. Augustine: “Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that thou mayest believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.” (19)

Revelation invites us to believe in order to understand (Isa. 7:9, “unless you believe you shall not understand”), and in knowing, to have eternal life (John 17:13). [But this is no mere philosophical knowing!]

Members of the Augustinian family show originality in their thinking. “You cannot fail to know an Augustinian when you meet one in history, but it is not an easy thing to guess what he is going to say.” (21)

“Just as scientists accept observable facts as the very stuff which they have to understand, those religious geniuses accept the data of Revelation as the given facts which they have to understand.” (32) I had this exact thought about Martin Luther a few years ago, that he applied reason and logic to the Bible without changing the Bible. If that led to a paradox, well, then the paradox was true!

Averroës just wanted to philosophize in peace. Realized the Koran was not a philosophical book but a theological one. Did more to civilize people. Had to “make room in his doctrine” for Prophets. (50ff)

Gilson seems to accept Mohammed as a prophet alongside Moses and Jesus. (52) And the Koran as divine. Also: “A philosopher would have demonstrated the whole and absolute truth, and nobody would have listened to it.” He seems to think truth is ultimately to be found in philosophy. This is not (I think) what an Augustinian would say.

Another family, the Latin Averroists. (54) They saw conflicts with Averroës and Revelation, but could not find an error in Averroës. Some became Deists (essentially rejecting Revelation).

The propositions of Averroists were condemned by the church in 1277. The Averroists proposed that there was no wisdom but from philosophers. You should only believe what you can prove. “Theology rests upon fables.” – Get this man a fedora! In my opinion, he’s laying the groundwork for rational materialism.

Even so, Averroës himself respected religion. His writings led later thinkers to these propositions.

Modern rationalism has its origins in medieval rationalism. (65) There is a direct line from these medieval ideas to Libertinism.

Science and faith are two kinds of assent. “To have faith is to assent to something because it is revealed by God. And now, what is it to have science? It is to assent to something which we perceive as true in the natural light of reason.” (72)

And another philosophical family, the “Thomists.” (81) They believe there are some revealed truths which can also be attained by reason. “Why did God reveal to men even some truths which our natural reason could attain? Because very few men are metaphysicians, whereas all men need to be saved.” (82)

Some examples of such truths: The existence of God, His essential attributes, the existence and immortality of the soul.

Thomists do not want to believe when it’s possible to know. And never claim to know what they merely believe. But their faith and knowledge grow together, both having the same divine source. I bet they are a real hoot at parties.

It is wise to “become acquainted with the writings of medieval theologians” (99) – they can at least help us ask the right questions.