I end then as I began: religion doctrine is knowledge. This is the important truth, little entered into at this day, which I wish that all who have honoured me with their presence here would allow me to beg them to take away with them. I am not catching at sharp arguments, but laying down grave principles. Religious doctrine is knowledge, in as full a sense as Newton's doctrine is knowledge. University Teaching without Theology is simply unphilosophical. Theology has at least as good a right to claim a place there as Astronomy.
Newman justifies Theology as a course of study at the University because he believes that Theology leads to certain knowledge. He even goes so far to say that theological knowledge is as certain as scientific knowledge. I do not disagree with him regarding the place of theology at the University, but is he misconstruing the differences between scientific and theological knowledge? Scientific knowledge is empirical, and although he argues against sentimental theology, Newman opposes an empirical theology. Is he justified in equating scientific knowledge with theological knowledge? Or is it necessary to make a distinction?
0 comments:
Post a Comment