Theology Philosophy

By

Aripin Tambunan

Is it probable to conduct one approach with based on theological simultaneously philosophical? Is it not the both thinking approach most contradictory? In which theology in search the truth on the based of the existence the revelation from the creator that has described and explained the origin of something. As the revelation has explained about origin all anything. As the revelation has explained about origin all anything, and then the explanation has to be received fully as a truth.[1] Of course in this receiving must be based on faith.

In building its basic thinking the philosophy is based is based on ratio. Its meant, what that can be sensed with sensory in the experience of humankind life and met the rational rules (formal logic). If something can not be sensed with sensory and it is not met the logic formal rulers, it can not be recognized as a truth (it has no valid as a know ledges). So it can be said that the philosophy approach in building its thinking is based on an empirical and rational.

Based on two thinking approach, it is impossible, there will be able to build a thinking approach in which theology and simultaneously also philosophy. Such as, for example, some subjects that holy inspiration explained, about the creation of universe, miracles, can not be accepted in the based on the philosophy (contradictory). Because science explained that universe was created due to the occurrence Big Bang, and according to science the miracles that pointed out in Bible cannot be catched by reason because they are in supra-ratio.

But, in fact, two thinking approaches are not contradictory, but they are mutual supplement one to another. Cause it is similar with the opinion of Thomas Aquinas that cited by Gordon Clark in his explanation about the relations between faith and ratio, that is that faith is the evidence or conviction of things that appear not. Faith therefore grasps objects that are not evident; what is evident is grasped by reason. Faith is les than scientific knowledge because faith does not have vision as science does, although it has the same firm adherence.[2]

Later he explained with emphazing to the word “necessary” and phrase “forced by necessity”, that the affirmed in sentences as this below:

Anything which can be proved by a necessary argument can be known as a scientific conclusion…… Whenever the understanding I forced of necessity to assent to something, it has scientific knowledge …. Whatever things we know with scientific knowledge properly so-called, we know by reducing them to first principles which are naturally present to the understanding….. Hence it possible to have faith and scientific knowledge about the same thing.[3]