I would say no. When we are dealing with non-empirical (that is, non-scientific) languages, I don’t think that you can give substantially greater epistemic weight to the conclusions of philosophers over those of theologians.
When I think of some of the system builders in philosophy (people like Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Derrida, Heidegger, Marx, Sartre, Nietzsche etc.) I feel like I’m reading stimulating creative writers—poets of being, if you will—but not writers that I would characterize as generating systems that have strong or objective links with “reality” proper. I simply don’t see a large distinction between, say, a theological language like Thomas Aquinas’s and the philosophical languages generated by, say, Spinoza and Heidegger. I don’t think, for example, that Heidegger’s “Dasein”, Hegel’s “Geist”, Marx’s “dialectical materialism”, or Sartre’s notion of radical human freedom really have all that much more epistemic justification than, say, the trinity, immanence, or the notion that humans have souls.
If you are speaking of philosophy in extremely narrow terms (as procedural logic, avoiding fallacies etc.) I don’t quarrel that philosophy can contribute more to human understanding than theology, but analytic theology (such as that practiced by Alvin Plantinga) is certainly not lacking in logical rigor. But I just can’t think of an example of a philosopher (past or present) who, as an intellectual system builder, really deserves any higher epistemic status than the theologian.
Once you leave the realm of the empirical, it’s hard for me to distinguish the systems built by the geniuses of philosophy and theology from poetry. They’re often beautiful languages. They’re curiously interesting. But they’re probably not true (or at least no more or less true than any other non-empirical way of talking about things).
How to decide between them? And how to live without them (or at least choosing between them)?
Perhaps make your own? William Blake said, “I must make my own system / or be enslav’d by another.”