This article was nominated for deletion on May 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Calvinism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism. Philosophy: Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Middle Ages Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moving text relevant to Wikipedia_talk:bans and blocks. Restoring the best version so far.

Request: can someone familiar with this topic (a) expand this article (b) review what is said about the Judeo-Christian tradition in ethics and (c) rip Ethics in the Bible apart, as it is from an utterly POV source.

Someone please add this man to the philosopher list:Francis Schaeffer also see his Wikipedia page

This article is designed to be about Christian philosophy, not Christianity in general. Please do not delete the main point of the article. If you have a problem with a particular section, please discuss it here first. Thanks. RK 02:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ strenuously with you RK. Someone imposed a whole mass of material that belongs elsewhere in "apologetics" or something else. It was no introduction, but an insertion of someone's sytematic thesis and distanced the true Introduction of the matter which cannot be accurate without proceeding historically, in the nature of the case. Reformatikos 7:16 PM April 14, 2005 (EST)

I don't think that you understand what the word apologetics means. Its technical meaning is nearly the opposite of the way you are using it. RK

The task of the Christian philosophy article is to trace thru the emergence of Christian philosophical contributions and highlight what relation they had to other philosophies in whose environoment they dwelt in different times and ages. -- Reformatikos

Could you rephrase this more precisely? It seems to me that you are not using the word philosophy in its technical sense. You seem to be using it in its informal, colloquial sense. However, this article is about Christian philosophy in the technical sense of the term. Your use is more like colloquial uses of the term. RK

"Philosophical theology" is not philosophy proper; it is theology that borrows heavily from and uses philosophy because its discontent with its own resources. -- Reformatikos

Who uses this term in this way? It sounds to me like you are claiming that "philosophical theology" is apologetics done by Christians who are insecure in their own beliefs, and who believe that Christianity is insufficient, and thus feel the need to go to other ways of thinking to confirm their beliefs. I have not heard others use this phrase in this way before. Are there any philosophers who recognize this terminology? RK 11:58, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Could you rephrase this more precisely? What does this mean? RK

The previous insertion, which I take to be yours RK and which requires all sorts of apparently unexamined and questionable presuppositions, tried to drive a division between religion and phliosophy as two binomially opposed subjects. -- Reformatikos

You are missing the main point. It is a historical fact that many philosphers believe that philosophy is incompatible with Christianity, or with any revealed religion, such as Judaism or Islam. Similarly, it is a fact that many religious Christians believe that Christianity is incompatible with philosophy. And yet a third group believes that the two are indeed reconcilable. These are critical points. RK

BTW, I take offense at your remarks that pointing this fact out is somehow the fault of me making "apparently unexamined and questionable presuppositions." I didn't make any presuppositions at all. Rather, I merely stated the array of views that different people have on this subject, in accord with NPOV policy. RK 23:20, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact that both many Christians and many philosophers believe that Christianity and philosophy are "two binomially opposed subjects." Therefore it is a requirement of our NPOV policy to point the existence of such well-known and well-represented disputes. RK 22:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Some philosophies insist on doing so, even some syntethist Christian philosophieis. But Christian philosophizing need not do so. It can stand on its own and is equipped to review its own historical emergence and doesn't have to argue for the existence of God - why should it even bother to do so, as Christian philosophy which is oriented to understanding the structures of creation and their diachronic development. -- Reformatikos

I can't believe you are making this claim, while editing an article on Christian philosophy. It is a historical fact that many Christian philosophers do discuss proofs for the existence of God! If one is unfamiliar with this, then one is not yet qualified to do deep writing on this issue. Plenty of Christians have a worldview that differs from yours. The variety of Christian viewpoints, both classical and modern, is quite wide. RK

Whereas if ultimate values are the heart of the definition of "religion" then every religion (including atheisms or absolutizing rationalisms) can generate various philosophies from its own inner genius over historical time. I wanted to emphasize Christian philosophizing as an integral and inevitable movement but with diverse results over time. -- Reformatikos

Fine by me. I have no problem with this. I haven't deleted any sections within this article. I totally agree with you that Christianity has generated various philosophies from its own inner genius over historical time. RK

There is no problem of "two fields" for Christian philosophizing. I am not deleting the main point of the article at all, you are inserting extraneous material to make "apologetics" and certain of you personally selected problems in the border discipline of "philosophical theology" the central issue. -- Reformatikos

This so-called "extraneous" material is the main point of the article: Is Christian philosophy even possible? How can we discuss Christian philosophy if the very concept is impossible? Well, although many Christians and many philosophers do hold that it is impossible, some Christians hold otherwise, and attempt to merge the two. Actually, is this latter view not in agreement with your own thesis? RK

But this RK approach makes a static systematics of your own divising the POV-ridden norm for a topic that has to be pursued historically, in order to see how those Christian philosophies for which we have extant documents or references, posed their own problems, figure by figure, over time - either in thetic construction, in posing problems, and in borrowing or refusing solutions along the way.

That is totally incorrect. The introduction does not give my philosophical approach. I do not offer or reccomend any systematic philosophy. (And many varied Christian systematic philosophies do exist, from Thomas Aquinas to Charles Hartshorne.) I never once wrote my point of view in the article, nor here in this Talk page. RK

As for your position that we should pursue this subject historically, through extant documents, seeing how the subject evolves over time, I am in total agreement with you. I haven't made any changes to the article's analysis in this way. RK

This is not the place for you to take over the lead with your own settled systematics - most of which issues are not germane - Christianity doesn't necessarily have to raise the question of whether God exists, except outside it's own phlosophizing and in another discipline called "apologetics." Create your own "Christian apologetics" entry, or "Christian philosophical theology" entry, and then a reference can be made in "Christian phliosophy" for those not really interested in philosophy to divert their attention to "apologetics" and/or "philosophical theology." I find you to be completely inappropriate and out of order in this move of yours. This is no place for your systematics. Yours Reformatikos 7:16 PM April 14, 2005 (EST)

But I did not "take over the lead with my own settled systematics." In fact, I never discussed my own views on this topic at all. I merely offered an introduction which attempts to put the subject in its intellectual context. RK

Secondly, many Christian philosophers do consider these issues germane. Just because you don't care is irrelevant. This article is about the wide range of views of Christian philosopjy, not the narrow set of views that you agree with. RK

Thirdly, as for you suggesting that I write an entry on Christian apologetics, you also should know that we do already have many articles on Christianity and its apologetics. Please re-read our articles on Philosophy and on Apologetics. RK 23:08, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I mean. Look at Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective, by Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg, Baker Academic, 1987. The authors are both Christians and philosophers. They believe that the two are complimentary, not contradictory. The contents of their book list the subjects they discuss (partially quoted, below), and they are the same subjects that many classical Christian philosophers discuss, namely: RK

Part one: Introduction to Philosophy

1. What Is Philosopy?

2. Disciplines Within hilosophy

3. Methodology in Philosophy

4. The Tools of Philosophy

5. The Challenge of Philosophy

Part two: What Is Knowledge?

6. Can We Know?

7. How Can We Know?

8. Is Certainty Possible?

9. How Do We Perceive the External World?

10. How Are Believes Justified?

Part four: What Is the Ultimate?

17. The Relationship Between Faith and Reason

18. What Is Meant by ``God?

19. Does God Exist?

20. How Can We Talk About God?

21. The Problem of Evil

22. Can We Experience God?

What are the sources for the following assertions?

"As with any fusion of religion and philosophy, the attempt is difficult because classical philosophers start with no preconditions for which conclusions they must reach in their investigation,"(emphasis mine)

"This is known as apologetics and is a common technique found in the writings of many religious traditions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but is not generally accepted as true philosophy by philosophers."(emphasis mine)

Removed this apparent bibliographical passage from "Interaction between Christian and non-Christian philosophers" along with a large section of text in a different language; this was out of place where it was, but I'm putting it here rather than throwing it away since others want to make use of it in the article; it does seem relevant at first glance. Gthb 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bibliography of Additional Readings" (1990). In Mortimer J. Adler (Ed.), Great Books of the Western World, 2nd ed., v. 2, pp. 987-988. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
• Craig Paterson & Matthew S. Pugh (eds.) Analytical Thomism: Traditions in Dialogue. Ashgate, 2006.
• Ferrarin, Alfredo, Hegel and Aristotle, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg, The Idea of the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy (trans. P. Christopher Smith), Yale University Press, 1986.
• Gerson, Lloyd P., Aristotle and Other Platonists, Cornell University Press, 2005.
• Heidegger, Martin, Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle: Initiation into Phenomenological Research (trans. Richard Rojcewicz), Indiana University Press, 2001.
• Knight, Kelvin, Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and Politics from Aristotle to MacIntyre, Polity Press, 2007.
• Lobkowicz, Nicholas, Theory and Practice: History of a Concept from Aristotle to Marx, University of Notre Dame Press, 1967.
• Lutz, Christopher Stephen, Tradition in the Ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre: Relativism, Thomism, and Philosophy, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
• McCarthy, George E. (ed.), Marx and Aristotle: Nineteenth-Century German Social Theory and Classical Antiquity, Rowman & Littlefield, 1992.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, Marxism and Christianity, Duckworth, 1995 (2nd edn.).
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984 / Duckworth, 1985 (2nd edn.).
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, University of Notre Dame Press / Duckworth, 1988.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition, University of Notre Dame Press / Duckworth, 1990.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, ‘The Theses on Feuerbach: A Road Not Taken’, in Kelvin Knight (ed.), The MacIntyre Reader, University of Notre Dame Press / Polity Press, 1998.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues, Open Court / Duckworth, 1999.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, ‘Natural Law as Subversive: The Case of Aquinas’ and ‘Rival Aristotles: 1. Aristotle Against Some Renaissance Aristotelians; 2. Aristotle Against Some Modern Aristotelians’, in MacIntyre, Ethics and Politics: Selected Essays volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Riedel, Manfred (ed.), Rehabilitierung der praktischen Philosophie, Rombach, volume 1, 1972; volume 2, 1974.
• Ritter, Joachim, Metaphysik und Politik: Studien zu Aristoteles und Hegel, Suhrkamp, 1977.
• Stocks, John Leofric, Aristotelianism, Harrap, 1925.
• Veatch, Henry B., Rational Man: A Modern Interpretation of Aristotelian Ethics, Indiana University Press, 1962.

This article does not meet Wiki standards for writing. It is filled with OR--original research. If has been unsourced for a long time. It should be scheduled for deletion.Afaprof01 04:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE: DELETE ARTICLE. I agree that the article is very poorly written and contains what seems to be homespun (OR) understanding of both Christianity and philosophy. The attributions about Jesus are unclear and misleading. The fact that this article has been around so long without ANY citations from reputable sources makes it very suspect and essentially worthless. Oberlin 03:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leibniz was christian, you can see that in his teodicee.

Isn't this both an oxymoron and a misnomer?!?!?! --Carlon 20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this article, I must say that it makes me think it was written by an atheist! 66.74.230.117 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course you think that. Just like, by reading your contributions, one might get the inkling that you are horribly, horribly biased, not unlike myself. The only difference being that I don't say anything unless someone is acting particularly stupid. 24.95.247.110 (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraphs of this article are deeply problematic. The definition of Christian philosophy as "the fusion of various fields of philosophy with the theological doctrines of Christianity" is refuted by the contents of the page itself. Already there is mention of Kierkegard and Dooyeweerd, founders of Existentialism and Reformational Philosophy respectively - no mere blending of philosophy with theology! Some work described as Christian philosophy may indeed fit this description, but the topic cannot be limited to this a priori.

Thus I propose that the whole section "Reconciling Christianity with philosophy" is a topic for another article, or at least should be moved further down this article. Let's give a chance for radically Christian philosophies to be presented before defining them out of existence!

RMGunton (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the following two paragraphs that I've cut from the section "Rennaisance and Reformation Christian Philosophers" may be valuable for other editors (indeed I partially agree with the second one) but not for readers.

"Two later Dutch Protestants are mistakenly put in the foregoing philosophical "era" by some historically ignorant contributor to this page. Neither belong to this era. One was a stock-market speculator on ships' voyages to the Dutch West Indies, and led in the disruption of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands over an inflated and misformulated Protestant Neo-Scholastic theory of "free will" that produced as its counterpoint the reactionary Canons of Dordt (Arminius became part of the sect called "the Remonstrants"). The other belonged ruffly and belatedly to the same school but remained nominally Reformed, while producing a great body of scholarship on International Law, his writings ironically becoming influential in the predestinarian Scholastic circles of Scotland. But these were neither Reformers nor philosophers."

"Even more serious a problem in this history of philosophy section, erroneously entitled "Renaissance and Reformation Christian Philosophy" is the lumping together of the Renaissance with the Reformation. This lumpen-historiography of philosophy has no place in the historical evaluation of Western philosophy's periods, continuities, discontinuities, re-emergences, twists, turns, and recurring problems traceable to a finite original number (Vollenhoven, Wolters), that arguably have simply exfloriated over the centuries. There were many Renaissance thinkers of importance, some definitely philosophers, who are not mentioned at all by previous contributors to this page. Absolutely inexcusable. So, the erroneous heading itself obscures epochal differences (Vollenhoven), while at the same time Desiderius Erasmus Roteradamus is never branched off from the Renaissance thawt to his own lone stance of textual critique and satire of church, state, and ranks of society; but it was he, if any one person, who moderated between the two conflated zeitgeists, and synchronic but alternative types of Christian philosophy. Yet was himself no philosopher."

RMGunton (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who in the world put Kant as a Christian philosopher? That should be deleted. Kant was a Christian philosopher tbf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:309A:A877:0:0:2767:C8A1 (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 75.141.113.231 (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any specific reason for the POV-tag, it was marked by sir Anon IP 64.234.0.101 HERE, with the reason (adding the tage... where are the sources?) in May 2009. It must certainly have timed out now. The article is a little POVvy from an anti-philosophical sentiment, but not enough to warrant a fat POV-tag. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section Origins of Christian philosophy is wrong. Jesus did not philosophise, neither The Apostle Paul. The origins of "Christian" philosophy (scholastics and so) is mostly Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose rebuilding the entire article around a discourse similar to Philosophy and Christian Theology from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, written by real philosophers, not amateur editors trying their best to remember what they've been taught from here and there. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Dostoevsky included on the Christian philosophers list? He was certainly Christian and his writings reflect that. Andrei Bolkonsky (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dostoevsky's religious beliefs are debated among scholars. See the section in the article about him regarding his religious beliefs. Eb7473 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be titled 'List of Christian philosophers' as it doesn't really detail anything unique about Christian philosophy, just lists Christian philosophers. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Christian philosophy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This article contains unclear sources and lead section does not summarize enough key points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuJi and GuaGua (talk • contribs) 06:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article Need to be completely rewritten, its contemporary form is very bad (Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

WP:TNT is the only way to save this article(Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

What do you think about the suggestion above to Rename this article, or transfer this info to List of Christian philosophers and write a new article here about Christian philosophy? Editor2020 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I rewrite this article?(The Sr Guy (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

What really are the philosophy of Christian religions 158.62.80.208 (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]