Comments on: Paul Tillich: the Apostle to the Intellectuals

Paul Tillich: the Apostle to the Intellectuals

dios — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:40:34 -0800

Paul Tillich (1886-1965) was a German thinker who came to America in 1933 after losing his job for opposing the national socialism movement. Tillich was at once a protestant theologian and an existentialist philosopher and humanist who attempted to intellectualize religion and bring it to contemporary audiences in the age of science. His brilliant writings and speeches would typically weave together biblical passages with discussions of philosophy and science. In this most famous work, The Courage to Be, Tillich laid out his case of how man can resolve the existential crisis of facing non-being. In echoes of Soren Kierkegaard and Freud, Tillich attempted to explain how man could resolve the fear of nothingness with the Courage to Be in the face of Non-being. Throughout his life, Tillich's ultimate concern was to try to help man understand the real value of faith and meaning by divorcing the concepts from the myths and the religious and social dogmas which cramp the mind of modern man.

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:47:43 -0800

interestingly enough, Dr. King's dissertation was about God in Tillich's and Henry Wieman's thought

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:52:48 -0800

Wow. That's one helluva FPP!

By: shoepal

shoepal — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:56:39 -0800

Weird. I was going bust out some Tillich demythologization in a couple of those Brownpau threads, but never bothered to. Nice post, Dios.

By: verb

verb — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:56:54 -0800

dios, thanks for the post. I've been reading some tillich lately (power, justice and love in particular) and it's really fascinating stuff.

By: unreason

unreason — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:58:57 -0800

Wow. Dios, that is one nice post.

By: longbaugh

longbaugh — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:01:21 -0800

*sets aside evening for reading links*

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:12:41 -0800

Thank you.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:30:10 -0800

He was also a conneseur of porn. His final resting place is in New Harmony, Indiana. A town fouded by an egalitarian, utopian, German religious cult at the turn of the 19th century. The Rappites decided to return to Pennsylvania in no small part due to their strict social structure which separated men and women to keep them from temptation in what they believed to be the final days before the rapture. In the 1820's the Rappites sold the colony to a group of European proto-communists lead by the Welsh communitarian, Robert Owen. He and 800 members of the community set up shop, lock stock in barrel in the vacated homes of the Rappites. Unfortunately the thinkers and academics failed to forsee the need for skilled labor in the Harmonite Community and soon faced severe shortages. Many decendants of Harmonites still live in New Harmony which is still operated as an artist colony run by community rule.

By: scody

scody — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:31:13 -0800

Fantastic post -- thanks!!

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:38:27 -0800

Excellent post, Dios! I've been reading Dynamics of Faith as a counterpoint to Why I Am Not A Christian, and it's wonderful.

By: moonbird

moonbird — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:44:24 -0800

Super post- I've really enjoyed Tillich. Cheers!

By: Falconetti

Falconetti — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:45:48 -0800

Great post. Tillich is one of the few theologians I have read that has greatly affected my understanding of spirituality. I crib his stuff everytime I get into a conversation about god and religion.

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:56:27 -0800

Great post. I would heartily recommend "The Courage To Be" as a great guide in facing the uncertainties of modern life. It's been over 20 years since I read this, but I still have my copy. Perhaps it is time to go back and read it again now that I have a few more years experience behind me. Tillich's ultimate concern was to try to help man understand the real value of faith and meaning by divorcing the concepts from the myths and the religious and social dogmas which cramp the mind of modern man. I agree, but it makes it seem like his writing speaks mainly to the faithful, whereas I think he has as much if not more to say to non-believers.

By: killdevil

killdevil — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:00:11 -0800

[this is good]

By: dios

dios — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:05:51 -0800

I agree, but it makes it seem like his writing speaks mainly to the faithful, whereas I think he has as much if not more to say to non-believers. posted by caddis at 1:56 PM CST on February 2 I see what you are saying, but I think the response to your point is that belivers whose belief is hollow or not fully actualized are in the same boat as non-believers: those who haven't fully resolved the questions need help in thinking about these things and in trying to answer these difficult questions. That is the source of his condemnation of most modern religious practices: they don't help their followers any more than non-believers in fully grasping these things. ______ (I'm glad some of you have liked this post. Tillich has much to be read and considered, and if one can grasp even a bit of what he has to offer, I think one's life is enriched.)

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:30:44 -0800

From the First Things link:

Whenever the split began, we have been living with it for some time, and the problem is that the former greatest allies of faith now appear to be deconstructing humanity in ways that provide neither guidance for the common life nor compelling interpretations of the inner life. Waving the banner of postmodernism, contemporary thought has decentered the human subject, insisting that the human person is but a social construct. The individual, in this view, is not a soul, a mind, a psyche, or a will-and is certainly not made in the image of God. Any residual ontology that implies a "real" self able to choose and reason, love and judge, needs to be abandoned. We are to recognize instead that individuals are but random collections of virtual states of consciousness, with no underlying ground, no principle of unity, and no predetermined boundaries.

and

Our current autonomous humanism cannot rightly shape souls or societies. It has no enduring depth, no capacity to grasp who we are or to guide us as to what we ought to be about.

What a crapload. Why is it that religionists must continuously frame non-believers as sorrowful, lost souls who simply can not create a set of internally-consistent morals that are beneficial to the individual and society?

But above all, we seem to be reaching a fresh appreciation of transcendence: we live in an order we did not create, but which we must acknowledge if we are morally honest. It can be more clearly grasped when we see our own and our neighbor's humanity under and within the care of God. In this sense, we are reaching the end of the humanist era that pretended to be autonomous and issuing a call to seek again for a theonomous humanism.

Lies and bullshit, all. Wanna know why I come out strongly against religion? It's because of people like this, who utterly misrepresent atheism and who are completely incapable of understanding it. These poor sods need religion in order to function in this life, and their addiction to it appears to turn their brains to such jelly that they can not step out of their own box and view the world from a different angle. I'm all in support of religion for those people who can not function in this life without it. Some people apparently require faith in order to cope with the surety of death, the inequities of this world, and the development of a morality that permits society to work in a sustainable manner. For these people, religion is a useful and positive tool. I wish that the religionists could grab a clue and understand that for others, faith in religion is not necessary, is not desired, and is not helpful, and would show just a little respect for those of us who do not need nor want it. If religionists would like to have a reasonable discussion, they'd best start off by being respectful. Telling lies like those I quote above is not respectful in the least.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:41:41 -0800

Interesting stuff, dios, thanks.

By: raygirvan

raygirvan — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:44:01 -0800

A further biographical snippet: according to his wife Hannah's memoirs, Tillich was into S&M, with a particular taste for pornography involving bondage and Christian crosses.

By: bardic

bardic — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:44:43 -0800

I agree with fff, but perhaps in a bit less vehement fashion. I find Tillich to be incredibly tedious, so I try to understand him against the context of his times--no doubt the rise of National Socialism led him to conflate his crisis of faith with a larger existential ennui, and for good reason. All Christian theology after Kierkegaard is an attempt to gloss over the essential (and powerful) absurdity of belief--to make the "jump" so to speak is to leave behind many of the comforts of rationality and causality. Tillich does a good job of explaining some of these paradoxes, but always seems to evade the most significant questions by retreating into the existential groupthink of his day. Short version--Tillich takes Freud's daddy-quest way too seriously, and I'm thankful that's a phase of western thought that seems to be in decline. One could do worse though--no doubt he was an intelligent guy, and he must have seen some awful things first-hand. Shorter version--Absence of faith and belief isn't the abyss, it's an opportunity for (serious) play. A desire for the "center" is a form of weakness and having no imagination. But he was into porn? Evidence of that?

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:44:51 -0800

five fresh fish: Those passages are not really about Atheists.

By: bardic

bardic — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:46:00 -0800

(Thanks raygirvan.)

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:52:03 -0800

Nor were they written by Tillich. But they do misrepresent the outcomes of humanistic thought and principals.

By: unreason

unreason — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:55:49 -0800

Nor were they written by Tillich. So...they weren't about athiests. And they weren't by Tillich. But they're somehow relevant to Tillich's attitude about athiests?

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:57:09 -0800

That's funny FFF, reading Tillich had a great deal to do with how I became comfortable with my disbelief. It was through Dynamics of Faith that I came to the conclusion that I really don't give a shit if there is a god or not, which, Tillich argues is a completely valid viewpoint. I think what he does not see as valid is the argument that "I am atheist because I deny God" an argument he would argue only exists within a framework established in a question of god's existence.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:00:51 -0800

I am an Atheist because - Look! A penny! Shiiiiinyyyy!!!

By: Trakker

Trakker — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:00:55 -0800

God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him. This is similar to the conclusions that I have come to in my existential ponderings of God. The essense of existence seems to come from the interactions of existence itself, whatever that may be. Our observations of the natural laws shows that things interact in a very specific way. It seems to me that this structured interaction is also the essense of God and thus existence itself. The idea of God is tainted by the imagery of a specific consciousness that looks upon everything with the power to control it. But it feels closer to the truth to thing of this power as woven into existence itself, and our ability to think and interact to our environment is a result of this. We are merely pieces of God. We are not only becoming aware of the universe, but through us, a piece of the universe is becoming aware of itself. five fresh fish: When those that practice religion mention the idea that athiests have no morals, it just shows their lack of understanding of their own spirituality. Belief doesn't equal reality, and this is what needs to be fixed first. No matter what you believe, we exist due to some specific, so far observable, structure. It is a shame that people with strong faith forget the meaning of faith. It closes their minds and stops the advancement of this understanding. I hope someday this will one day create some unified rational understanding of our roots that will give enough comfort to those that need it. Fun stuff. Try not to get lost too far down the rabbit hole.

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:07:37 -0800

since the S/M can of worms has been opened, we might as well link to Tillich wife's book, "From Time to Time". Excerpt re: Tillich's taste for slide shows.

"There was the familiar cross (...) a naked girl hung on it, hands tied in front of her private parts. Another naked figure lashed the crucified one with a whip that reached further to another cross, on which a girl was exposed from behind. More and more crosses appeared, all with women tied and exposed in various positions. Some were exposed from the front, some from the side, some from behind, some crouched in fetal position, some head down, or legs apart, or legs crossed‹and always whips, crosses, whips."

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:14:27 -0800

Well, I guess that is another way to face the abyss of non-being.

By: dios

dios — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:21:47 -0800

It is really sad for me to see people focusing on his personal preferences. There is so much richness to this thoughts. He, by all accounts, was a gentle soul whose life was dedicated to trying to use his amazing mind to help people understand difficult issues. Paulus gives believers and non-believers help in working through their own thoughts. He was much an existential philosopher as he was a theologian. But I suppose the salacious is more interesting than the thoughtful and erudite, and it certainly is easier as it takes less clarity to comment on the private allegations.

By: raygirvan

raygirvan — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:27:25 -0800

I didn't raise that aspect of his life as a slur or value judgement (many MeFi members are in the BDSM community) but as extra biographical detail showing him to be a far more complex person than is painted by focusing merely on the 'safe' aspects of theology and philosophy. The Tillichs' open marriage, as described at the GodWeb link, was revolutionary for its time, particularly when accommodated in the context of a generally Christian worldview.

By: mikelly

mikelly — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:29:08 -0800

Being the sort of humanist nonbeliever that Tillich is trying to reach out to I feel ambivalent about his theology. He presents virtually no arguments in his writing, often contradicts himself on the most fundamental assertions (ultimate concern, ground of being, revelatory experiences), and has no solid ground on which to base his assertion that Christianity is closer to the "truth" of God than any other religion. In the end his theology is much more hallow than he would like to admit. His mysticism causes the value of any religion to be nothing more than its pragmatic success in overcoming the existential crisis.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:31:43 -0800

Nifty post. "Tillich was into S&M," Philosphers who dig porn? Cool. I've read some of his stuff. Looks like I'm going to read a bunch more. " It's because of people like this, who utterly misrepresent atheism and who are completely incapable of understanding it. " - posted by five fresh fish Define atheism. Seriously. I've asked questions about this for a while and never get a straight answer on how atheism defines itself from an ontological standpoint. Purely as a matter of philosophy.

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:36:49 -0800

I didn't raise that aspect of his life as a slur or value judgement don't take the bait

By: dios

dios — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:38:25 -0800

raygivran: I didn't mean to suggest it is inappropriate to bring it up. It is certainly an aspect of the person. I was just suggesting that faced with the weight of his writings and what he offers to discussions that recur here at least once a day, I find it odd that his sexual life would be something of interest that people would rather talk about. In a discussion of Shakespeare, his infidelety wouldn't crack the first 1,000 pages if my book of things that are worth cogitating on about Shakespeare. It doesn't mean it is unfair to mention it. But with all their is, it just seems odd to choose that aspect to mention. That's all I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to tell you that you shouldn't bring it up.

By: bardic

bardic — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:38:46 -0800

dios, why is it "sad"? People aren't focusing on it as much as they're trying to paint a complete picture of this person. If he was an astrophysicist maybe it would be a different story, but to deny that a self-fashioned intellectual concerned with the nuances and essentials of human experience had a life beyond what he or she wrote is in itself a rather backwards notion. That said, it's funny that I'll now think of him as the straight version of Michel Foucault. (Extra trivia: Know what Proust used to like to do for fun? Pay boys to shove needles into the bodies of live, caged rats.)

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:42:13 -0800

"Define atheism." Atheism in the generic sense is nothing more nor less than a disbelief in supernatural explanations for the world. My view: There is/are no God(s). No spirit. No supernature. The universe is natural, if frequently misunderstood. The universe is not here for our benefit, and we are special only inasmuch as we determine to be special.

By: bardic

bardic — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:44:31 -0800

There's enough infidelity in Shax's corpus to not need to bring it up in his real life. As far as we know, he wasn't that much of a lech compared to many of his contemporaries (he wasn't invited to the orgies that Marlowe probably was).

By: Rothko

Rothko — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:51:28 -0800

don't take the bait Too late.

By: Haruspex

Haruspex — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:42:26 -0800

A post on Townes Van Zandt, then Tillich? Respect, Dios.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:50:07 -0800

Great post! He was also a conneseur of porn. Now, see, that's the extra added value MeFi discussion provides! Don't worry, dios, I think most of us can enjoy the philosophical goodness and get a kick out of the kink.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:08:00 -0800

So...they weren't about athiests. And they weren't by Tillich. But they're somehow relevant to Tillich's attitude about athiests? Puh-lease, unreason, read the actual post I made. Did I mention Tillich in it? Mais, non! I was responding specifically and -- if you look at the first five words of my post -- explicitly the second-to-last of Dios' links. Sheezus. It's enough, sometimes, to make one wish to call upon the gods to strike a person down!

By: verb

verb — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:45:32 -0800

Atheism in the generic sense is nothing more nor less than a disbelief in supernatural explanations for the world. Isn't that materialism? Atheism seems like it's focused more specifically on the god/demigod/invisible beings aspect of things. I'm not triyng to misrepresent, just curious.

By: unreason

unreason — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:55:34 -0800

Puh-lease, unreason, read the actual post I made. Did I mention Tillich in it? Mais, non! Silly me. I assumed that in a post about Tillich you'd actually want to talk about Tillich.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:04:56 -0800

verb: I worry that this is a derail, and given that this is a quality post, I hesitate to go too far down this path. But given the sincerity of the question, I'll try to reply briefly in kind. [First of all, please understand that I really can't speak for anyone else, and certainly speak with no real authority on the subject. On the other hand, given the subject, part of the point is that there is no final authority. So I'll feel free to give my opinion.] I think the reason that Atheism tends to be presented as focused on questions of god/demigod/invisible beings is that the only reason to even discuss Atheism is in opposition to those ideas. This (aside from the usual tone of such debates) is one of the things that the religious tend to find the most insulting about Atheists: the sense that Atheists are denying their specific beliefs. And while in some cases this may be true, in the most literal and basic sense, Atheism isn't about your God, or your idea of spirituality at all. It doesn't validate God through a denial of God. In it's purist form, Atheism is a view that the universe is natural. The fact that others believe differently, isn't really relevant to that belief at all. In practical terms, though, Atheists usually find themselves in perpetual opposition to the religious. Personally, I find that distasteful. Sorry for the derail, dios.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:50:08 -0800

"Atheism in the generic sense is nothing more nor less than a disbelief in supernatural explanations for the world." "Atheism is a view that the universe is natural." Which is why I initially - and still sorta - take it to be a sort of unphilosophy. Or like verb as materialism (or empiricism) - which asserts that there can't be any a priori knowlege - that is knowlege derived without reference to experience. I don't know that it's a derail to discuss the philosphical basis of atheism in this post. Tillich agrees with Aquinas on the rationality of knowlege - that is that meaningful a priori knowlege is possible - but that observation/experiance compliments it. I think Tillich argues that existance depends upon the infinite ground of being but can't ever express it or reach it except through symbol. Given that he takes religion as a system of metaphor, the question I would ask is - what would be atheism's position on symbolism? See the dilemma I'm having? If atheism is purely empiric in philosophy - then it denies the usefulness of metaphor and symbol. But if it isn't - that is, if an atheist can agree that non-direct observation can still yield knowlege, then the argument is over what symbols to use - or which are more useful (?) /perhaps atheism doesn't confirm anything per se - ? And it seems to Tillich is also arguing against dogma in either case. /Take the word "God" out of the equation and you have just bare bones questions about the nature of being. I guess, from Tillich's standpoint (please correct me if I'm wrong) - is revelation of the infinite an inherent potential in all existence?

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:56:19 -0800

- from an atheistic POV I mean. It seems he's agreeing with what I take to be a principle of atheism that there is no proof for God. (In the sense that it's myth based or beyond conscious thought) ...can I also point out I enjoy the irony of National Socialists burning a book called "The Socialist Decision".

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:07:31 -0800

Darn, Smedleyman - interesting points that I don't have time to adequately address. Quickly, then: "If atheism is purely empiric in philosophy - then it denies the usefulness of metaphor and symbol." "Unphilosophy" is good. Works for me. The point being that Atheism (as I see it) isn't about denying anything. Atheism simply prefers certain methods of seeking over others. Atheism itself is (to be purposefully ironic) agnostic about such things as metaphor and symbolism. Because "usefulness" is not a useful concept in Atheism, per se. Atheism simply says that where metaphor and symbolism exist, they must have natural causes. And it is my understanding that cognitive science, among many, many others, has shown that metaphor and symbolism are of great value. As a poet, I would agree.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:50:56 -0800

matteo writes "Some were exposed from the front, some from the side, some from behind, some crouched in fetal position, some head down, or legs apart, or legs crossed‹and always whips, crosses, whips.'" dios writes "Tillich has much to be read and considered, and if one can grasp even a bit of what he has to offer, I think one's life is enriched."

By: raygirvan

raygirvan — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:51:02 -0800

to paint a complete picture of this person Thanks, Bardic. That is what I was trying to convey. It adds to the biographical understanding of Tillich to know that he was juggling the erotic aspects of his personality with the religious, rather than treating him as some kind of sanitized philosophy machine. I really liked your idea, which was echoed in Althaus-Reid's Indecent Theology, that he could have become a kind of straight Foucault.

By: bardic

bardic — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:04:22 -0800

Interesting. I'll have to check that book out when possible, although I was being somewhat facetious in the comparison re: Tillich and Foucault. Lot's to think about--a sort of personal will-to-power that struggles to make form and sense out of received theistic/power formations. Also, it's archaic to say that a reader has to stop after reading a book and have no interest in the life of the author in question (New Criticism having gone the way of the dodo, although close reading remains a strong and often unacknowledged part of its current legacy). If anything, knowing about Tillich's relationship with his wife makes me want to read him again, much more than any hollow talk of "being" and "nothingness" and "banality of modern existence," etc.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:41:48 -0800

Silly me. I assumed that in a post about Tillich you'd actually want to talk about Tillich. Silly you. You assumed, instead of actually reading what was clearly written.

By: verstegan

verstegan — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 04:33:40 -0800

Good post, dios -- I'm impressed by the number of links you managed to find. Last autumn I wanted to put together a FPP on Dietrich Bonhoeffer to mark the sixtieth anniversary of his execution, but had to abandon the idea because I couldn't find enough good material available online. (Tomorrow is the centenary of Bonhoeffer's birth, so perhaps I should try again -- but two posts on German Protestant theologians in the space of one week might be felt to be too much of a good thing.) I have to admit, though, that I've never been one of Tillich's admirers. What he was trying to do (as I understand it) was to redefine one of the founding principles of Lutheranism, by replacing Luther's classic formulation 'simul justus et peccator' (justified, yet a sinner) with his own 'simul justus et dubitator' (justified, yet doubting), on the grounds that, while Luther had been wrestling with sin, modern man was wrestling with existential doubt. I can see why this struck a chord with many people in the 1960s who felt dissatisfied with traditional Christian orthodoxy. (A lot of people in Britain were first introduced to Tillich through John Robinson's book Honest to God in 1963 -- it was Robinson who popularised Tillich's description of God as 'the ground of our being'.) But .. well, to be honest, I can't see how Tillich's position differs from atheism. And in the light of the revelations about his private life (which I didn't know about), I can't help feeling that there is something suspiciously self-serving about his rejection of the traditional Protestant understanding of sin. Famously, some commentators have argued that Paul de Man invented deconstruction in order to blot out the reality of his Nazi past. Perhaps Tillich's substitution of doubt for sin should be seen in similar terms, as an attempt to escape the moral implications of his sexual behavour? Perhaps this is an appropriate moment for me to pay tribute to one of the theologians I most admire, Harry Williams. who died a few days ago. Williams's theology, like Tillich's, is born out of doubt and despair. But whereas Tillich's portrayal of religion is, frankly, a fairly unattractive one -- a hard slog through difficult intellectual terrain -- Williams reminds you that religion can be fun. He was one of the first Anglican priests to come out as homosexual, and he was entirely unapologetic about it -- sexuality, to him, was something to be enjoyed and celebrated. (This may seem commonplace now, but twenty years ago it was a brave and radical thing to say about homosexuality.) And bardic's remarks about Tillich and the will-to-power reminded me of Williams's observation that 'religion is to a large extent what people do with their lunacies, their phobias, their will to power and their sexual frustrations', which has always struck me as one of the truest things ever said about religion.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 07:09:49 -0800

Verstegan— No fair! I was planning a Bonhoeffer FPP for monday!

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 09:01:12 -0800

Excellent clarification It's Raining Florence Henderson I suspect that on the whole atheist thought doesn't directly address the use of symbol, etc. Because there are scientific and mathematical concepts (Absolute zero, infinity) that are useful but not observable. As well as Quantum Mechanics which has many not directly observable and somewhat ambiguous but nonetheless 'real' events. And I don't know that many atheists have thought about it as much as you have. Many folks seem to take the "screw religion" tack and end thinking about it there. Which to me is self-annihilating. I'm lucky to have gotten your response. Tillich was alive when QM was being concieved. I wonder what he would have thought about it. "It is probably true quite generally that in the history of human thinking the most fruitful developments frequently take place at those points where two different lines of thought meet. These lines may have their roots in quite different parts of human nature, in different times or different cultural environments or different religious traditions: hence if they actually meet, that is, if they are at least so much related to each other that a real interaction can take place, then one may hope that new and interesting developments may follow." - Werner Heisenberg

By: bardic

bardic — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:01:09 -0800

Again, I don't dislike Tillich, but verstegan's comment reminds me of the statement that he was the greatest Christian theologian of the 19th century.