OUG,

I was not stating my position:

I was providing feedback to relda on my interpretation to his "stance". Relda when asked about said stance previously cited new sources of information rather than positing a stated personal position. At least until his last post. Herein, I am providing feedback to see if understand him correctly.

In my view one must understand creation before agreeing to a Creating Agent. And if there is a Creator, there might be other solutions to what theists call, "God". And, if after a long process, we decide on "God", we are unsure that said God is any of the gods, preented by the man-made religions.

I'm offline for a few days.

relda,
>>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. <<

Thanks for this concise summary of Tillich’s ideas about God, though its terseness might lead to misunderstandings. It made me reread the last sections of his “The Courage To Be”. I do not think Tillich “refuted” other approaches to the concept of God, I think “transcends”, as you also mention, better describes his ideas.

Tillich mentions three “theisms” (unspecified affirmation of God, person-to-person relationship of the Jewish-Christian tradition, and the “strictly theological” one (by which he obviously means classical apologetics that try to “prove” the existence of God) that his “God-above-God” transcends, because it sees God not as “a being” (what you call “mere being”?) but “being-itself” (a distinction apparently inspired by Heidegger that I am unable to follow).

Tillich, of course, is an existentialist theologian/philosopher, and what Russel said about Aquinas - that his contribution to philosophy is through the originality of the questions he asked, not necessarily through the answers he offered - can somehow similarly be applied to the existentialist approach to philosophy and theology. Nevertheless, Tillich is here exceptional, since “Tillich’s emphasis on ontological rather than existential interpretation is important. Tillich restores what Bultmann’s stress on ethical and personal categories tends to loose.” (John Macquarie, 20th Century Religious Thought, SCM Press1963, p.370).

So I do not think one could claim that he “refuted” the objectification of God (which would make him into an adherent of Dawkins), only extended, adding the subjective factor and emphasizing that we can refer to Him, “know” Him, only through symbols.

I understand Tillich’s “God-above-God” in the sense of Kant’s “Ding an sich” that we cannot know directly, only through symbolic models, e.g. Tillich’s three versions his God-above-God “transcends” in the sense that these, and other, models point to It. Something like we can understand the physical reality “as such” - except in trivial cases - only through symbolic models (theories) based on more and more sophisticated mathematics.

George,

My understanding is that Tillich, with his ‘theistic objections', is acutely aware of religion substituting itself for God - where it becomes a form of ritualism and idolatry. Karl Barth maintains it is the unconscious nature of religion which can serve to assure its authenticity - it is what it is when it does not know what it is. "At the moment when religion becomes conscious of religion, when it becomes a psychologically and historically conceivable magnitude in the world, it falls away from its inner character, from its truth, to idols." I guess this is what Tillich is reflecting, suggesting also, a kind of spontaneity.

Oliver’s previous posting perhaps points to a dilemma, where the words "God" and "existence" are very definitely separated, except in the paradox of God becoming manifest under the conditions of existence.... As Tillich says, “God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” The perception of an impersonal God is one which is arrived at rather simply - theologically speaking, however, personality is a symbol as with everything else in religion. And I’m sure you’d agree (from your last paragraph), like all symbols, "personality" doesn't adequately capture the full depth of ultimate reality. The conviction of the Abrahamic religions is that if ultimate reality were not at least personal, or at least capable of everything that humans are capable of, we’re unable to surrender ourselves fully to it. It would be an "it" rather than a "thou".

In terms of the ‘symbolic modeling’ you suggest, where sophistication becomes an inherent part of the process, Tillich says that the task of apologetic theology is to prove that the Christian claim also has validity from the point of view of those outside the theological circle. Apologetic theology, he says, must show that trends which are immanent in all religions and cultures move toward the Christian answer. This is the bone of contention for many (including Dawkins et al), where there is the misunderstood presumption of arrogance for such an answer

it could be advanced that as we get what we deserve...god has got the people he serves..and his people..the religions/leaders..they deserve

<<..religion substituting itself for God..where it becomes a form of ritualism and idolatry.>>>this has been the issue throughout time

from the ritual of the forbidden fruit..to the gold ox...oh ye unbelieving nation...imagine mutilating gods forskin..the chosen ones...mutilating the way god gave us to be...then claimng special; dispensation...lol

forgetting the tribe killed in recovery of the rite...who took the mutilation for love...by their deeds are they revealed/..let alone the genocide in the gulags...violaTING HOLY-DAYS/SABBATH DAYS,..turing gods city[lol]..into a war zone

<<it is what it is when it does not know what it is>>...egsactly..we can know god..only one to one...his is the living loving still quiet voice..emmanuel[within]

even a beast in the field...knows gods living ,loving voice..[let alone the beast in the stable ..knowing its masters voice...know gods voice is all good/all loving...where god is is life

oliver<<"God" and "existence" are very definitely separated,..except in the paradox of God becoming manifest..under the conditions of existence>>.where god is life is..being sustained to live,,,by god...think of god//as the energy...animating the computer

<<Apologetic theology,..he says,..must show that trends..which are immanent/..lol..in all religions and cultures move toward the Christian answer>>>not so...

we must seek to know...the/at-one-meant..[atonement]..with the good living loving god/within...naturally sustaining life..ALL LIFE/ALL LIVING..naturally/

the nature..the nurture.living loving light sustaining life..into love via logic..[at-one-meant]

relda,
Thank you for your interesting comments. What you (and Tillich) seem to (rightfully) object to is the confusion, identification of symbols, models, with the Ultimate Reality they are supposed to model. The phrase “religion substituting itself for God” sounds like “science substituting itself for the physical reality itself”: there is no other way to treat reality - physical or beyond - than through models, and the mistake arises only when one forgets the difference between reality and our mental, cultural, scientific etc. models or representations thereof.

Nevertheless, we tend to say “the Earth (a part of physical reality) IS a rotational ellipsoid (a mathematical concept)” instead of “in order to investigate globally the Earth it is best to model it as a rotational ellipsoid (for local purposes the Euclidean plane is a better model)” or something similar. This would be too confusing for the “man in the street” so the first sentence, containing only an implicit reference to models, is more appropriate for everyday purposes. In this sense also statements about the Ultimate Reality, made e.g. within a Christian belief system, have to be understood as being only implicitly about Christian MODELS of Reality.

I can understand Tillich’s “God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” only as a reference to Thomistic concepts of essens and existence. According to this philosophy/theology “Since God’s essence is his nature and God’s existence is the same as his essence it follows that God is existence.” (http://www.saintaquinas.com/article4.html).

I do not know what is Oliver’s understanding of Thomist philosophy, but for me it is almost incomprehensible. Obviously not for Tillich, who is here commenting on, or criticising, Thomism. After all, I have been told, Tillich is also a compulsory reading - along with Acquinas - in Catholic seminaries.

For me something cannot both exist and not exist, whatever that something is, or whatever you understand by existence. Without understanding Acquinas (and Barth) my inspiration from Tillich comes only along the parallels with the way reality is understood (modelled) by physics. (ctd)

(ctd) By the way, there is a frequent reference to, and discussion of, Tillich in the physicist-theologian Ian Barbour’s seminal work (Myths, Modesls & Paradigms - The Nature of Scientific and Religious Language, SCM Press 1974) that actually launched the interest of scientists, philosophers and theologians in the field of “theology and science”.

The accusation of arrogance against Christianity is well known, although I did not understand how apologetic theology was related to my understanding of religious (cognitive) symbols and models. I think it was Karl Rahner who coined the term “anonymous Christians” to describe non-Christians (including atheists) who lived a life compatible with Christian ethics, and it was - I think rightfully - accepted by many as arrogant. On the other hand, e.g. my belief in God was questioned on this OLO, because somebody saw an overlap with his/her atheist attitude. It was meant as a compliment and I accepted it as such, certainly not as arrogant.

Neverthelss, there is a problem: even if we agree that nobody can “know the truth” it is still a question, who has a better “model of it”, whose mythology, sacred book, philosophy, theology etc., better approximates this truth. The question of which model of physical reality (theory) better approximates the truth about these or those physical phenomena, is complicated enough, without even having the subject, the observer, so inherently involved as in case of the “ultimate truth” that religion is after.

I have to be convinced that mine is the best one - otherwise I would have converted to other religion/belief system - but I have to present this preference of mine without being offensive to others. And that is a problem, not only on the individual level, and certainly not only for Christians or even Catholics. Tillich might criticise the practice of presenting Christianity (or other belief system) too apologetically, intolerantly - or arrogantly if you like - but he does not seem to offer a constructive suggestion short of what leads to - as the Pope calls it - relativism of values, and I would add “of models”