Christianity, Judaism and Islam would profit from an era of open debate and Mississippi State has the power to initiate such dialogue.
In the Middle Ages the more enlightened universities would sponsor debates between rabbis, priests and imans. Granted, many of these presentations were merely platforms in which the host religion would scorn the other two with the judges’ decision already being made.
Yet in the more productive forums, true rationalists were given the opportunity to acquire a wealth of wisdom. The debates would dive into metaphysical and philosophical thought that would profit an open-minded audience.
Unfortunately, the rise of religious fanaticism, negative anthropology and modern philosophy have stifled the spirit of open and respectful debate.
The study of different cultures shows different paths to the truth, so no one culture can be the sole judge of truth. A return to scholastic thought would benefit both our universities and our world.
Philosophy and reason existed in Christianity from the very beginning. One of the fundamental passages of Christian thought is contained in John 1:1-5: “In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
This is a popular but poor translation. The Greek word “logos” was turned into “Word.” The actual meaning is more along the lines of “reason” or “rational principle.”
Consequently, when reading John 1:1-5 in Greek, one sees that reason exists from the very beginning and actually is God. Keep in mind, for Christians God has many attributes-goodness, love, mercy and so forth. In recent times Christians have over-emphasized other attributes of God and have forgotten that he is also reason and truth.
Furthermore, because Christianity does not provide a law that tells us how to live politically, reason and logic play an even greater role. Belief in the Trinity provides a Christian with wisdom and this can be checked rationally. As St. Augustine said, “I believe that I may know.”
During the Scholastic Age, Islam, too, gloried in the power of reason. Of course, the religion was split evenly then between fundamentalists and intellectuals. The Mutazalites made a valiant effort to secure a place for philosophy within Islam. As a result, they ushered in the Golden Age of Islam.
Their willingness and desire to interact, learn from and instruct Christians and Jews created an atmosphere of wisdom. Great men like Avicenna and Averroes were not afraid to delve into the classics and as a result reintroduced Aristotle and Plato to the West.
Avicenna argues that the intellect is even more important than the body. He introduced the “flying man” argument: even without a body we would still be aware of our ability to think and form thoughts. Therefore, he argues, the body corrupts, but the intellect is incorruptible and without end once it is set in motion by Allah.
Perhaps the strongest supporter of philosophy in Islam is Averroes. Averroes argues for the standard of the double truth: philosophy equals truth and Quran equals truth. If the Quran teaches something philosophically impossible, it is to be read allegorically. (Yet the many, being uneducated, must still take the Quran as literal.) He argues that one can only study philosophy after he has been trained in the morality of Islam.
Jewish thought also contributed to the flowering of scholasticism. Moses Maimonides, one of the greatest minds of the age, wrote his Guide To The Perplexed in order to accommodate philosophy to Judaism. Philosophical arguments do not overthrow Torah, he argues.
Like the above-mentioned Muslim thinkers, Maimonides argues for allegorizing the parts of Torah that seem to be in conflict with philosophy. He says it is acceptable to follow the philosophic standard because the central teaching of the law is the loving God. God is the primary teaching of the law and everything else is of secondary importance.
Make no mistake, Maimonides remained a devout Jew-he was a recognized Talmudist and wrote the Mishneh Torah, a highly rational approach to Jewish law.
In addition, Judaism never subordinated philosophy to theology because philosophy is opinion and the law is actions. Great precision about God’s character is not needed in Judaism-he is perfectly good and to be feared. He is “I will be who I will be.” As a result, a Jew may pursue logic and reason as long as he continues to fulfill the law.
In conclusion, these three religions are capable of great thought when they acknowledge the role of reason. An open-minded man ought to consider himself fortunate if he is able to hear a scholastic style debate between rabbi, iman and priest.
Bernard of Clairvaux argues that Christians ought not forcefully convert a Jew because he already has his covenant with God; a Jew goes to heaven by being a good Jew.
The Catholic Church teaches that the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims.
And finally, Aelred of Riveaux preaches that when a Christian goes to heaven, he will be seated at a banquet, along with the Jews and Muslims. Perhaps at this banquet open debate and dialogue will occur.
Christians, Jews and Muslims will inevitably fight one another. So be it. War is part of the world order. Let the battles be over political differences. In the meantime let us respectfully debate and inquire over theological and philosophical differences.
Ryan Starrett is a senior history major. He can be reached at [email protected].