1

CAN THERE BE A TRUE PHILOSOPHY THAT IS NOT CHRISTIAN?

By Stephen B. Plaster, Ph.D.

2

The title of this paper reflects the purpose of the author, Peter Simpson, in his article

entitled, “The Christianity of Philosophy” published in 2001.1 Simpson discusses his criticism of

the separation over time of the study of wisdom into dual categories of philosophy and religion

that do not overlap. The key to this separation are the definitions applied to both philosophy and

religion. The definitions create a separation that is not warranted according to Simpson.

Philosophy is defined as the study of things by unaided reason. Religion is defined as the study

of things by supernatural revelation. Simpson argues that philosophy and religion overlap

producing insights and discoveries by the totality of the thinking person irrespective of the

person’s vocation and academic frame of reference.

My thesis will argue that there can be a true philosophy which is not Christian. First, I

will demonstrate that historical fact excludes, in some cases, Christianity a posteriori in the

timeline of some culture’s philosophical development. Second, I will argue that Simpson’s

discussion of Justin Martyr’s conversion to Christianity while claiming to be a philosopher and

then projecting this specific example to the experience of all philosophers is arguing the specific

and then moving to the general based upon an inductive “all claim.” Third, I will argue that

Simpson’s argument that a thing is loved in the whole of it and not as a part only based upon

Plato’s Republic is misapplied because the whole of a thing may be reduced to the sum of the

causes that produced it.

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom in order to enjoy a happy way of life which is a “part

only” of life. The “part only” can be loved as the ancients believed based upon human reason

and not revealed by the reality of the divine wisdom. Fourth, I will argue that Simpson’s

dualistic concept of complete wisdom revealed by God and the preambles of this wisdom by pre-

1 Peter Simpson, “The Christianity of Philosophy,” First Things 113, (May 2001): 32-36, under keywords history and

philosophy, record 80, http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/webz/fspage? (accessed November 26, 2008).

3

Christian philosophers was not a clean-cut abstraction as a formal idea and not a lived reality. It

is based upon a factually false premise which produces a factually false conclusion.

Peter Simpson claims that philosophy and religion overlap in the individual whereby the

Christian faith produces a truthful and complete philosophy. His reasons are based upon the

example of Justin Martyr who is claimed to have searched from philosopher to philosopher to

find truth and ultimately found the truth in the Christian faith. He states that all philosophers

before the coming of Jesus Christ were beginning to understand Christian truth which, until

Christ, was hidden, not yet revealed, and a mystery.

The method Simpson is relying upon in his argument is evidential inductive reasoning.

The statements in the premises are therefore claimed to be both rational and probable but not

certain.

For Simpson, the forerunners to Christianity such as the prophets of Judaism and the

logos of the Greeks were revealing truth, albeit incomplete, leading to complete truth in Christ.

He equates the Greek logos with the Logos of Christ in the gospel of John as the crux of this

argument.

Simpson also claims that in the beginning of ancient philosophy, the purpose of

philosophy was to pursue a happy and virtuous life in this world. He believes that Plato’s belief

in rational deities coupled with the pursuit of wisdom was a way of life based upon striving to

understand and appreciate the whole individual human experience rather than the pursuit of only

a part of human understanding based upon categories such as religion, astrology, mathematics, or

logic.

4

Finally, Simpson claims that true wisdom is a divine gift based upon enlightenment and

divine revelation. Prior to Christ, wisdom was acquired by human reason which is a preamble to

wisdom revealed by divine revelation. What can’t be answered is how much, if any, wisdom can

be known prior to the divine revelation of Christ.

Simpson is concerned with the definition of philosophy, the compartmentalization of

philosophy, and the passionate pursuit of philosophy as a worthwhile and enjoyable life goal.

This is important because the understanding of these three areas will determine whether

philosophy is meaningful, truthful, enjoyable, and worthwhile. Regarding the definition of

philosophy, if it is only the pursuit of wisdom based upon human reason, then absolute truth will

be omitted. However, if human reason is viewed as an active by-product of divine intelligence

and revelation, then absolute truth, though limited and finite in our understanding, may be

discovered.

The compartmentalization of philosophy threatens to stifle debate concerning what is

meaningful and worthwhile. It is natural and relevant for a human being to want to know

answers to questions like: Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? Post-

modern philosophy has left these questions as either unanswered or unanswerable while pursuing

narrow views of process, language use, and structural philosophy.

Finally, philosophy should be more than a vocation or an academic pursuit. Every

thinking person has some philosophy as expressed values, beliefs, and a worldview. Through

this filter, we process all our decisions based upon our mind, emotion, will, and senses. In this

sense, there are seven billion philosophies on Earth today. It is certainly worthwhile to discover

the common denominators between human beings so that we can appreciate each other and enjoy

life on Earth.

5

Simpson’s thesis is that the study of philosophy is holistic and practical in that it seeks to

restore the quest for the meaning of life as well as improve human life. What began so

meaningfully with Augustine and Aquinas in contemplating this world and the next world has

narrowed by erosion to a road without purpose. It is like Solomon’s wisdom in suggesting the

dividing of an infant to distribute to each contending mother a part. Since the infant is only

viable as a whole person, the division or cutting asunder is only fair in the eyes of the false

claimant. The true mother would gladly give up her part of the infant to preserve the life of the

whole infant. Philosophy should preserve the whole (truthful and complete wisdom) based upon

the proper love of the part (limited and finite understanding of the divinely revealed wisdom).

Several historical facts are important to the understanding of the thesis of the author’s

article. First, the dividing line between preambles to truth and complete truth could be better

defined. Truth discovered in philosophy has been gradual over a period of 2500 years. There is

no dividing line or single point where incomplete truth leaves off and complete truth takes over.

If Christ is absolute truth, then it is revealed by Him and in Him. Truth revealed by Him

includes His activities in the ages past as in the act of creation or in His pre-incarnation

appearances. Truth revealed in Him occurred in a period manifested between 4 BCE and 30 CE.

The author could be more historically precise in advancing his argument that would be clarified

with a timeline.

Second, the author could have advanced the arguments of the following: Augustine’s

faith and reason where “to understand is to first believe”, Anselm’s a priori argument where “that

which is greater” cannot be in the understanding alone, or Aquinas’ causal and teleological

arguments for a “first cause, efficient cause, and an intelligent designer”. These citations by

Simpson would have formed the basis of advancing our understanding between faith and reason.

6

If we have advanced, then it follows that more is being revealed and discovered respectively.

Yet modern philosophy has regressed into niches of reason without boundaries.

Finally, the author could have pointed to a person in the history of philosophy who broke

with a past understanding which led to a blind alley based on human reason alone, yet increased

our understanding and our wisdom. Candidates could be as follows: Erasmus’ belief in

humanism, Francis Bacon’s four idols, Locke’s deism, Hume’s skepticism, or Darwin’s atheism.

I have included four of Simpson’s arguments because all four are important to understanding his

thesis. The first three arguments will be dealt with more briefly. The fourth argument will be

analyzed in more depth in a premise-by-premise manner.

It is an historical fact that all philosophies prior to the advent of Jesus Christ are non-

Christian.2 In addition, some philosophies developed after Christ may also be non-Christian. In

the group considered as primitive religions, societies worshipped non-Christian beings. These

religions include Naturism which is the personification of natural forces and objects, Animism

which is the inhabiting of objects by spirit forces, ghost worship which is the departing of the

spirit to live an independent existence, and Totemism which is based upon the belief that humans

are akin to some animal which must be sacrificed and eaten. There are also temple religions

from ancient times such as those of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Aztecs, and Mayans. These

religions with their temples, rituals, and priesthoods serviced the gods rather than the people.

Another group of religions focused on attaining a state of perfection and generally believed in

reincarnation as the preferred methodology. These religions include Hinduism, Jainism,

Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. The religions of Greece and early Rome were regressive

and polytheistic while being of human origin. The religion of Islam is a post-Christian religion

2 Rodney Stark, Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief (New York:

HarperCollins, 2007), 21-33.

7

whereby the follower worships a god who is unknowable and unpredictable. Only

Zoroastrianism and early Hebrew religions have some beliefs in common with Christianity.

Each of these two latter religions predates Christianity, is monotheistic, believes in a conscious

afterlife, and is progressive toward the revelation of a god with high purposes. Therefore, I

would argue that other philosophies of religion predate Christianity and do not resemble

Christianity in meaning and purpose. To argue that God reveals Himself in nature, through

conscience, and by the law is acceptable based upon Romans 1:18-23; 2:14-15; and 7-24

respectively; but it is not acceptable to argue that God is revealing Himself and His purpose

through any of these former philosophies (excepting early Hebrew and Christianity).

It is acknowledged that Justin Martyr was an early church leader who through his

intellect sought for a better way of life and was a lover of wisdom. In coming to the Christian

faith, Justin found a “whole” purpose and meaning to life. This can be expressed as to know,

love, and glorify God. However, the example of Justin alone does not adequately support the

author’s thesis that all philosophers before the coming of Christ were in some way already

anticipating Christianity and Christ was already, albeit in hidden ways, at work in the

philosophies. The author does not explain in what ways Christ is anticipated or how He was at

work in the philosophies purportedly preparing the way to Himself. This observation by the

author is based upon a single example, Justin, which is an inductive claim. He then generalizes

the inductive claim to a universal “all claim” that all philosophers are anticipating Christ. The

inductive claim is verifiable but the universal claim is not verifiable. Had the author used

numerous examples and claimed probability rather than certainty in his claim, he would have a

stronger argument.

8

Simpson’s third argument is based upon Plato and the other early Greek philosophers

whereby they rejected myth in their religion while interjecting reason into philosophers and they

rejected myth in their religion while interjecting reason into their beliefs. Specifically, his

argument is that if someone is said to love something, then he loves the whole of it and not a part

only. To Plato, the faculty of reason is the highest form of understanding. If this is true, then for

Plato there is a reality which is changeless, eternal, and nonmaterial. This is called “forms.”

There is a form for the body and a form for the soul according to Plato. But a person can admire,

enjoy, or love the body alone apart from the soul or a person can love the soul (mind, will,

personality) alone yet not love the body. Or, the soul and body which are united as a whole and

which possess a united form can also be loved in total. In philosophy, one can love the whole

discipline or only the parts thereof. Therefore, the author’s argument fails that one can only love

the whole.

The final argument which Simpson makes is the one in which I will analyze in more

depth. The questions addressed are: How much wisdom can be known prior to the divine gift of

Christianity? Are these preambles to the faith which impart incomplete wisdom revealed by God

to pre-Christian philosophers? The author believes there was a natural tendency to call the

preambles philosophy. Since the natural philosophy was achieved by human reason, then it was

assumed that all philosophy was acquired by human reason. This belief became accepted,

formalized, and institutionalized separating philosophy from religion. This then becomes the

first premise of the author’s syllogistic argument. It may be stated as “pre-Christian philosophy

is based on reason.”

The second premise addresses religion. The author claims that there is a natural tendency

to identify Christian philosophy with religion. This type of philosophy was acquired by divine

9

revelation. Thereafter, this belief also became formalized and institutionalized separating

religion based upon divine revelation from philosophy based upon human reason. The second

premise then becomes “Christian philosophy is based upon divine revelation.”

These two premises, if both true and if related to the conclusion, will produce a logical

conclusion which satisfies the argument for the philosopher.

The conclusion made by the author is that the formalization in the modern world into two

separate abstractions was the cause of the belief that ancient philosophy was not divinely

revealed. Even though Augustine and Aquinas addressed the dichotomy of philosophy and

religion as compatible and leading to truth, yet each discipline went their separate way.

The conclusion of the author is “no philosophy prior to the Christian advent is divinely

revealed.” This is because the preambles were linked to philosophy rather than religion and

understanding based on the preambles were achieved based upon human reason. This is meant

to designate natural understanding as separate from revealed understanding.

The author speaks of true and complete philosophy as the goal of the ancients and that it

should be the goal of the modern philosophers. But, understanding is limited and finite such that

true and complete understanding may be a quest in this life but a reality only in the afterlife. The

arts and sciences strive for specialization, compartmentalization, and precision in the search for

understanding. A person’s worldview determines how a person will view the world as it pertains

to both meaning and purpose. Some persons can admit in their understanding both material and

metaphysical concepts, while others will accept only one and reject the other. Therefore, a

person’s worldview forms that person’s philosophy and religion, not the other way around. The

author’s premises are not factually true because of the rigid dividing line the author places

10

between pre-and post-Christian revelation. In the ancient Hebrew text, God reveals Himself, His

purpose, and the role of humans. The part that is progressively revealed is His plan and how it

will be accomplished. Therefore, what is understood in the pre-Christian era is true and

revealed, but incomplete. This true understanding is not sometimes false as in polytheism or

acquired by only human reason as in humanism precisely because anything divinely revealed is

truth and anything not so acquired is subject to error.

Christian philosophy is divinely revealed but the revelation is communicated in the

dreams and visions of human beings so that what is understood and communicated to others is

the result of a limited, finite person’s understanding or lack of understanding. The wisdom

divinely revealed at its origin is truth, but one’s understanding may be only partial and

incomplete.

Historical fact demonstrates that not all philosophy is Christian. In using the preamble

argument, let us suppose that the preamble is someone’s verbal directions to reach an unknown

location. If the directions are wrongly communicated or misinterpreted, I will likely not find the

destination. So too, if the preamble is sourced from a false spirit or received by a fallible human

being, the result will not lead to the revealed Christ.

Not every philosophy seeks to find God. God is revealed as early as the Garden of Eden

in that He let the first two humans know His purpose and will. He also communicated the rules

and duties to the first humans. Philosophies of false spirits which are of human origin do not

necessarily lead to a revealed Christ. For example, there is minimal linkage between the logos of

the Greeks and the Logos of the Gospel. Further study of this possible logos connection is

warranted.

11

To say that enjoyment of a part is insufficient to enjoyment of the whole is too

demanding of a human being who is bound by time and space. God allows us to enjoy and love

in part our spouse, family, nation, church, and Jesus as we know them today. Someday we will

know and enjoy in a different existence which is not bound by limitations where the whole will

be eternal, infinite, and immaterial. Since the author’s argument related to Plato, further study

on whether Plato was influenced by the ancient Hebrew prophets and whether the Old Testament

when written was influenced by Plato or any Greek philosophy is warranted.

Finally, it is not enough to appeal to a time of ancient philosophy where the pursuit of

wisdom was a life goal. The real issue is to pursue wisdom with a worldview which is a priori

based upon the revealed truth of Scripture and which is understood with the faculties given to us

of will, emotion, intellect, and senses. Further study is warranted, not based upon the

philosopher alone, but based upon the religious beliefs and values as well as the human laws and

practices of each ancient culture from Sumerian to early Roman. These findings can then be

compared to Scripture to determine whether the components of each culture were revealing a

step along the path to discovering God the Father and Jesus Christ. If we are not able to build

upon a Christian worldview, then any system, including philosophy, will be of doubtful value or

entirely lacking in value. But, the system lacking a Christian worldview may still be a true but

incomplete philosophy.

12

Bibliography

Simpson, Peter “The Christianity of Philosophy.” First Things 113 (May 2001): 32-36.

http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/webz/fspage? [accessed November 26, 2008].

Stark, Rodney, Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief.

New York: HarperCollins, 2007.