Summa Theologica I, 1, i
First Part, Question 1, Article i
Summary
In this article, Aquinas argues that man should not restrict his intellectual inquiry to philosophy alone.
He offers these objections to his position:
- Man should not try to know anything beyond reason. Philosophy’s domain includes everything subject to reason. Therefore man should restrict his inquiry to philosophy.
- Philosophy’s domain is everything that is true, including God himself. Therefore theology is already a part of philosophy and any further knowledge is unnecessary.
He begins his reply with 2 Tim 3:16: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice.” Philosophy comes from human reason, not from God; therefore there is useful knowledge (in Scripture) which is not from philosophy.
Further, Aquinas argues, knowledge from outside philosophy is necessary for man’s salvation. First, man’s end is God, who is higher than human reason; therefore humans need to know truths about God which human reason cannot discover. Second, even for truths about God which human reason could discover, special revelation is necessary to prevent those truths from being known only by a few and with many errors. Such a state of affairs would be inadmissible because the knowledge of God is essential for man’s salvation.
Aquinas replies to the objections thus:
- Although it is true that man should not try to know anything beyond reason, God may still reveal things beyond reason. Whatever God reveals must be accepted by faith. What God reveals is the subject matter of “sacred science.”
- Different disciplines are distinguished not by the conclusions they reach but by their manner of reaching them. Philosophy may teach us truths about God by using human reason, but theology may teach us those same truths (and more) through revelation.
Analysis
This introductory section of the First Part (which contains only one Question, “The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine”) provides a rationale for the entire work. This particular article seems to be a formality: none of his original readers would likely disagree that theology is a separate discipline from philosophy and legitimate in its own right.
As for the body of his argument, I question the assumption that theology is necessary even for the truths about God which natural reasons could discover. Paul’s argument in Romans 1 seems to imply that humans are still held responsible for general revelation regardless of their exposure to special revelation. I agree, however, that knowledge of God gained by human reason can be the subject of theology insofar as those truths are also known through special revelation.
His replies to the objections are sound. Reading this article in the 21st century, however, it’s hard not to think of all the additional objections which most people would raise at the very beginning — “It’s irrational to believe propositions which can’t be proved by reason,” for example.
