relda? Hope you are still around. I will check again later. Cheers, Oly.

Oliver,
I’ll certainly grant you your persistence. As you correctly surmise, Tillich has had a strong influence on me – going beyond what one might read in Wiki. Tillich appears as one of the foundational thinkers for once again enabling reconciliation between religion and science. He regarded religion as a source of the “courage to create”, which is essential for progress in scientific knowledge.

Tillich observed the original unity of science and religion in antiquity – no conflict existed, as science had not separated from “natural philosophy”. For Homer, the divine was always present and working out the destiny of events. Science, through the process of “demythologization”, became a separate discipline. Galileo’s belief in the new Copernican heliocentric universe conflicted with the geocentric system supported by the church – similarly as did Darwin’s theory of evolution. There are, however, depersonalising forces inherent in a technological society, which “deprive the creative self of its selfhood”.

Galileo’s creativity with the newly invented telescope resulted in chaos between the new and old cosmological forms. The trial of Galileo was a challenge to his autonomy by the heteronomous church. The ambiguity of history, however, is illustrated by the fact that the church was ‘scientifically’ correct in saying that Galileo had no proof that Earth moves through space.

relda,

You are missing (or I am mis-communicating) what I asking. I am not requesting further information on Tillich, I am asking where you stand in relation to Tillich. Are a non-theist, who admires Tillich despite your disbelief or are you a theist who is citing him to support your belef? Knowledge of where you stand, is what is requested.

I am not a theist, yet I admire aspects Peter Aberlard.

Oliver,

I identify, if not share in Tillich’s belief, where the source of the “courage to create” (as expressed in his ‘Courage to Be’) was the “God above God”. By this Tillich meant the God who transcends theism and the concrete symbols of organised religion. He refuted the theistic objectification of a God which reduces this god to a mere being – “my stance”, if you can call it that, follows similar sentiment.

relda,

Thanks for that.

Is this how you think?

You do believe in God, yet see manifest theism as a poor substitute for God, who does exit, really is: The trinities, for example, of various religions are mere hypothetical constructs, which explain God in human terms, sometimes quite cleverly; yet, the true nature God is beyond us.

You accept a remote God (because God is infinitely complex) and the World's religions, and try to match the two, the best we can. There is a God far too sophicated for us to understand, who allows more simple temporal understandings to become available to us.

It is an interesting "stance".

strangly the decalsified o'liver holds an ongoing facination
how one so wise in his own eyes can still rewmain so ignorant..of the basics...of belief/believers...and the object of their belief

god is to man...as cause is to affect
like your thoughts...held in each neuron..oh liver..that in total..reveals ya brain...thus is god..the totality of all/cause /affect...nature..its all of god...doing the brain function/except your only one neuronic synapse..enjoing your relda

to quote de liver..<<There is a God..far too sophicated for us to understand,..>>via logic...<<who allows more simple temporal understandings to become available to us.>>>whoever we chose

thus ultimate is understandable by children...and the more you observe..the more your causing the observed...think quantum physics..your synapse should be able to link that...into your mind

you have blind faith in science...evolution...
that is so full of gaps...that if they were synapses...they wouldnt connect into anything remotly like science ...where lack of continuety...is stated as a faulse

you cant ever seek to comprehend ..that you mind needs to reject