What Have the Atheists Been Doing With Paul Tillich?

 



The other day I was answering the atheist attack on CARM that said I don't know anything about Tillich. In looking for online docs about him I found a remarkable thing: atheists are making use of Tillich in one way or another. They either try to reduce him to being a sort of cowardly atheist who couldn't actually admit he didn't believe in God, or they try to just assault his views of God straight out much as the CARM atheists have done for years against my arguments; that's not the image of God in the bible so it's unchristian. I really kind of feel that it's a mark of Tillich's growing popularity among theists and I like to kid myself into thinking I had a lot to do with it becuase of this blog. On the other there's enough of it going around that it's probably time to answer the assertions.
.......First of all another blogger Thomas Adams on  "Without Authority" writes "Was Paul Tillich An Atheist?" Of cousre that article was up in (March 9) 2009 before I ever talked about Tillich on this blog. O well. In any case he quotes some character named Lenard F. Wheat who says that "Tillich's chief claim to fame will be that he fooled a lot of people... Tillich is a complete atheist who lost his belief while completing his higher education. Intellectually he despises Christianity ..." He goes on to deal with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, atheist gurus, who write that the world of believers can be reduced to fundamentalists are closet atheists who dont have the guts to own up. Thus all the intelligent well educated believers are int he latter category so any true belief is stupidity and atheists don't have to listen to the more rational kind of theist. Having reduced all rational theism to atheism then of cousre Tillich falls in.
......Adams goes on:

As the quote at the top of this post shows, such atheists frequently take aim at Paul Tillich, who represents, for them, the epitome of the "atheist theologian." They've referred to Tillich's theology as "semantic hocus-pocus", "strictly bogus", a "bold masquerade", and "nonsensical hokum and claptrap". But do the charges stick? Was Paul Tillich really an atheist? The following quotes of his would seem to say yes:

"God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

"God is the symbol for God"
"The God of theism is dead"

 Apparently he saw atheists taking aim at Tillich back then, thus another cherished illusion is shattered. Still, I've seen a lot of them doing it recently this may a mark of Tillich's rising popularity, regardless of what produced it. Of course in the phrase that God does not exist Tillich is not saying there's no God. To think that he is saying that (in the recent may-lay on CARM some did try to argue this) is a classic mistake and shows immediately that one has not read Tillich. He uses the phrase "exist" in relation to contingent things only.So for Tillich existence is a lesser state than being and denotes dependence upon being. God is not contingent but is being itself. God demarcates the higher state upon which existing thins (which are contingent) depend.
.......An example of an Atheist taking on Tillich straight out is one I've covered on Atheistwatch before, the "Camels with Hammers" blog by  Daniel Fincke. On December 21, 2011 he posted an article "The Impossible God of Paul Tillich."  The one thing that marked this blog when I reviewed it on AW was his ignorance. We see it in action:

Tillich says he’s a Christian.  But here it’s worth pointing out that Tillich’s “God” is so far from the God of the Bible (and traditional Christian theology) that it’s hard to take his claim of being Christian very seriously.  And Tillich has widely been criticized by Christians as offering a strange new theory of the divine.  Some might say that Tillich was a Christian atheist.  Anyway, here are some relevant points from Tillich:

1. God is being-itself.  Tillich wrote: “The being of God is being-itself.  The being of God cannot be understood as the existence of a being alongside others or above others. . . . Whenever infinite or unconditional power  and meaning are attributed to the highest being, it has ceased to be a being and has become being-itself.” (1951: 235).  And he affirms again that “God is being itself, not a being” (1951: 237).   Since God is not a being, Tillich famously affirms that God does not exist (1951: 205, 237).
2. God is the power of being.  Tillich says “the concept of being as being, or being-itself, points to the power inherent in everything, the power of resisting nonbeing.  Therefore, instead of saying that God is first of all being-itself, it is possible to say that he is the power of being in everything and above everything, the infinite power of being” (1951: 236)
3. God is transcendent.  Tillich affirms the transcendence of God when talks about God as being above all things.  He writes that God is “the power of being in everything and above everything”(1951: 236).  And he says that “As the power of being, God transcends every being and also the totality of beings – the world” (1951: 237).

 These are good quotes but he doesn't try to learn what they mean. These are all things I've said here on this blog. They are not hard to grasp if one does of background research, he doesn't. He assumes that these are just high tone words designed to hide his unbelief, the reason being this is not the Christian stuff Fincke learned when he was Christian.
.......Of course if he really doesn't know that much about it he would probably still be one. So all he's really telling us is that that doesn't know anything about the real Christian view of God held by the great theologians of the past because all he ever learned about was the usual fundamentalist Biblical literalism. He accuses Tillich of having to "pull himself back from the brink of paganism." That's becuase for Fincke the real Christian view expounded by the great theologians of the Orthodox church seems like paganism becuase he knows nothing about it. For example he makes the specific charge that Tillich is a pantheist. He attirbutes his escape from pantheism to belief in God's transcendence. As though some passage in the Bible say " thou shalt not be a pantheist" and any understanding of God as present in nature is pantheism and any theological point of view that separates Christianity from pantheism is some sort of trick. Fist of all what is he calling Pantheism? Pantheism is either the belief that God is the sum total of all things, or (old school) a personification of nature; nature as a force is worshiped as deity. Neither one of these options is implied in anything Tillich says.
 .......Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Pantheism thus:"At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe." [1] The article goes on to say that philosophical opinion on the subject is too divided to be more specific. Yet if that is a valid interpretation than the transcendence issue would divide a pantheist form a non pantheist since the definition would say there's nothing outside of God, and saying that God is transcendent of all things would be the contrary.It is from Webster that I get my view that patheism sees God as nature, or the sum total of all things:

1

: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

2

: the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)

— pan·the·ist noun[2]

 Certainly the second definition is not used anymore. The first one would not apply to Tilllich. Forces and laws of nature are seen as products of God's mind but not synonymous with God.
.......Another great jewel form Fincke that Tillich's God is impossible becuase it's impossible for God to be both immanent and transcendent:

For Tillich, God is both “the power of being in everything and above everything”.  I’d say that’s absurd – for Tillich, God is both immanent and transcendent.  But it’s impossible to be both immanent and transcendent.   To be sure, if Tillich wants to claim to remain within Christianity, then he’s got to affirm the transcendence of being-itself.  But it makes very little sense to do so.  Much of Tillich’s first volume of Systematic Theology looks like a pantheistic or pagan theology onto which a superficial layer of exhausted Christian ideology is painted.  That paint peels off easily.

This first phrase "the power of being in everything and above everything" is one of Tillcih's most profound and powerful concepts. Fincke tosses it aside as though it means nothing because he doesn't understand it. He does see that it implies transcendence but does he see that it really disproves his earlier notion? His comment about Tillich's Systematic vol 1 looking like a pantheism handbook truly reveals his ignorance because nothing could be less so. Tillich even has a section on why he's not pantheistic and he shows that Pantheism violates his basic canon and would reduce God to a thing in creation. In fact Tillich makes this same argument. It's the transcendent nature of God (which contradicts pantheism) that makes Tillich a panENtheist. God in and beyond creation.
.......Fricke merely demonstrates his ignorance of historical Christianity, as do all who try to argue that Tillich's notion is "not the Christian God." The basis of Christianity really formed up in the seven ecumenical coucils of the Orthodox chruch. Tillich's mission in life was to bring that era of theology into the modern world. His notions of God as being itself are not only echoed by the Orthodox church but in History of Christian Thought He grounds them in the Trinitarian doctrine of homoucisos.[3] Thus the great expositor of the Orthodox chruch to the west, Timothy Ware writes that the Orthodox understand God as being "on the order of being itself."[4]





 [1] Mander, William, "Pantheism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
[2] Merriam Webster's online Dictionary. URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantheism
[3] Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought. Touchstone Books 1972.
[4] Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, Penguin books, 1963, 65

Atheists Deny the Norm of Truth: Tillich's Impied OA

Paul Tillich



Originally Posted by Metacrock

Empirical knowledge is not the only from of Knowledge.

I. Argument: knowledge is more than just empirical observation, there is a norm of truth.

Duane Olsen's argument that Tillich has an implied ontolgocal argument in the ground of being and the norm of truth.




(quote)

The indubitability of the norm of truth is shown by a reductio argument regarding the process of knowing. In different places and in different ways Tillich points out that denial and doubt in knowing presuppose the norm of truth.[xvii] I want to systematize Tillich’s reductio argument at this point to show that all major theoretical postures presuppose this norm.

We can imagine four major postures taken by a subject to any theoretical judgment. One could affirm the judgment, claiming it corresponds with reality; one could deny the judgment, claiming it does not correspond; one could doubt, question, and debate the judgment; or one could claim a decision cannot be made about the judgment. All of the options presuppose the subject’s ability to apply a correspondence-norm, or norm of truth. Certainly one must apply a norm to affirm a judgment. One must also apply a norm, however, to deny a judgment. Any negative judgment presupposes and lives from the positive bearing of a norm of truth by the subject. One cannot deny that a judgment corresponds to reality without presupposing the subject’s ability to make judgments about reality. Doubting, questioning, or debating a judgment presuppose a norm of truth as well. One could not debate the veracity of a judgment without presupposing the capacity in the debaters to determine that veracity. Doubting or questioning a judgment is only meaningful under the presupposition of a norm that gives validity to that questioning and doubting. Finally, the claim that one cannot know whether a judgment is true presupposes the bearing of a norm to determine how or why a decision cannot be made.

It is important to note that the argument for a correspondence-norm, or norm of truth, is on a different level than arguments about the specific nature of the correspondence between subject and object. The correspondence itself may be conceived in terms of naïve realism, idealism, or a multitude of positions in between. Every theory about the nature of the correspondence, however, relies on the presupposition of a correspondence-norm that would make it possible to formulate, and affirm, deny, debate, or declare uncertain that theory. Put differently, the theory of the specific nature of the correspondence between subject and object is another field of knowledge that is subject to the ultimate criterion of knowledge, which is what is disclosed in the idea of a correspondence-norm.

To claim that the capacity to apply a norm is indubitable is the same thing as saying the subject bears an indubitable awareness of truth. In other words, when one analyzes the major postures toward judgments and shows how a norm of truth is presupposed as something borne by the subject in every posture, one is pointing out an awareness of truth the subject has, though it is something the subject may overlook, especially in doubting or denying particular truths. Through the reductio argument, one focuses attention on the fact that the subject bears a norm of truth, thus raising it to conscious awareness. I speak more below about the character of this awareness, but for now I simply affirm something Tillich presupposes, which is the identity between the affirmation that the subject bears a norm of truth and the subject’s awareness of this norm.[v](closed quote)

NONAME

Duane Olsen teaches at a private Christian college. I see that a a strike against him. No more or less reputable than this guy:
(website as follows) mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/about/baugh.htm

Because he can compare Olsen to Joseph Smith that proves he's no good? Even though the two have nothing to do with each other. Olsen's knowledge of philosophy is excellent, professional and graduate level and Smith's was non-existent, we are still supposed to put Olsen on the level of Smith, why? because the all knowing anti-intellectual says to.

argument from analogy, and a bad one.

this is obviously going to far and I have to say this in the strongest terms. This is nothing more than bigotry and a refusal to think masked as some sort of religious indignation but at beast it's nothing more than incredulity at work. I've seen this atheist gimmick at work before: shut down any sort of evidence that that counts against one's position on some made up grounds such as "this perosn i the person that he is so that disqualifies him becasue he disagrees with me."

Look, you are here to argue with religion. So instead of arraign with a regions person, who knows his philosophy, you just go "this guy is religious and religious is bad so therefore I'm excused form listing he's wrong a priori tart's all there is. amen.

where's the proof. the proof is he's not agreeing with me. then when I say "you are an ideologue he gets angry and says "O how dare, I've told you before there is o atheist ideology. Dismissing arguments because they are by your opponents is nothing more than ideolgoical move! scream until you are blue that you don't have an ideology then you make moves likes an ideologue. There is no difference in saying "I am NOT going to listen to him because he's a religious person" and saying "I'm not going to listen to him because he's on the other side. which is just saying I"m not going to think.

I wont listen to him because he's a Jew, or the a communist, or he's black, or he's white, she's a feminist. If these rub you the wrong way, that's just what you are doing, you are not doing it against a group you hate, so you think it's cool. This what ideologues do! that's ideology!!!!

The really puerile thing about it is if you actually read the article and if you understood what it says you would see that he knows his stuff. So an argument that being form a small private Christian college means he doesn't know what he's talking about is just wrong headed, he does. The fact of the matter is if the fundies at his school took what he says seriously they would have to take a giant step away form fundamentalism.

Understanding Tillich is liberating form fundamentalism a prori. If to disagree with it is one thing, but even if you disagree just to undersatnd it requires a level of education such that one is less of a fundie than before. It's quite self defeating for atheists dismiss religoius thinkers a prori just for being religious. That's what's wrong with the accommodation argument.




Noname Again:

"Basically the quote from Olsen in just word salad that could be used to rationalize anything. I see this as an argument against rather than for Christianity simply because this level of mental gymnastics needs to be resorted to. Past experience tells me that if the word salad was put in plain language it would appear silly and Christians would get upset."

This is a self contradictory statement. this statement tells us two things. It tell us that he doesn't understand the Olsen article, and that his reaction to ti is mere knee jerk becasue he doesn't undersatnd it.

He calls it mental gymnastics but that just proves he doesn't understand it because it's quite cogent and if he really understood it he would see that. I see it, others whose opinions I respect and who have graduate level knowledge have read it and this so too.

Obviously he doesn't understand it. Then to say "word salad" all that means is he can't follow an arguemnt that's made at an academic level.

these guys who are so anti-knowledge and anti-intellectual who hate big words and think up insulting epithets for knowledge and erudition, (like "word salad" using big word whut I doesn't know) they are decrying their ignorance but we mustn't make them feel that they don't know anything becuase that's insulting. never mind how insulting it is that he refuses to consider an opponent just becuase he is on the other side, or that he refuses to learn or the follow the issues.

We must cater to the anti-intellectual becuase the school system has raised them to believe they are exempt form having to learn anything and their sense of entitlement is through the roof.

Metacrock's version is much clearer:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

1) Tillich understand’s God to be the unconditioned, eternal, transcendent, ground of all being;

That is fine I think it is an unfortunate use of the word God

Originally Posted by Metacrock

(2) Truth is an unconditioned norm based upon the correspondence theory; truth is correspondence between subject and object.

Truth is not unconditional. Is the man handsome?

noname

Yes, truth is correspondence between subject and object. That is all it is. Very simple, yet often subjective. Truth is fuzzy.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

(3) The norm of truth is self verifying sense; truth as a concept cannot be untrue unless the concept of truth is affirmed in contrast to the possibility of untruth. Any particular truth can be doubted but not the concept of truth itself.

Noname

I disagree. Truth, as you stated above is a correspondence between subject and object. It can still be subjective. Is that car expensive? For me yes for you no. Is that math problem difficult?

The argument doesn't say there's never a question about particular facts. It's talking about the concept of truth itself. To say truth is relative requires a concept of the larger notion of truth to compare to. Otherwise you don't have a sense of contradiction.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

(4) Due to this unconditioned, necessary, and indubitable nature the norm of truth is understood to be transcendent of subject and object, and transcendent of any particulars of nature.

Noname

Your argument has fallen apart at this point. Even if you could provide an example of some indubitable and necessary nature of truth it could quickly be exposed as dependent on human language and that is a whole other can of worms.

He just supplied me with that knowledge. He's saying my concept of subject object is wrong. That means there has to be a clear universal concept of truth in order to argue that some notion is false. Otherwise there's nothing co compare to. Truth and falsehood can only be compared amide a background that acknowledges the possibility of truth and error. If all truth is realtive you can't say one idea is false and another true.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

(5) The transcendent unconditioned is equated with God in Tillich's understanding of being itself (from 1); the existence of such a norm is demonstrated in the nature of the norm of truth.

Noname

That is fine but ultimately unconvincing.

If you are not concentrating.