Talk:Paul Tillich/Archive 2

Request for comment

Comments requested on style and content of theological sections. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Archived

Because this talk page had become staggeringly large in a very short time, i decided to be be WP:BOLD and archive everything except for the above pending RfC. I can't imagine there's even a syllable in existence that has not been yet expressed in these discussions, sadly. perhaps we can begin again, less verbosely, and simply discuss improving the wikipedia biography of Paul Tillich, and keep it at that, which is the raison d'etre of the article talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Tillich

I may have missed the discussion on this before, but are there no available/public-domain photos of Tillich available? Jonalexdeval (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

my mother was a student and friend of his, and i recall seeing snapshots of him at home. i'll ask her whether i can scan them. i recall at least one that may be adequate. Anastrophe (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

very cool. Of course there are a few photos floating around on the internet, but I am not aware of which have copyright issues. Jonalexdeval (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately, it turns out my mom didn't take the snapshots - no idea who did, so they can't be uploaded to WP. the excellent portrait is by a professional photographer in germany, deceased in 1990, so the copyright won't lapse until 2060. i'm reluctant to invoke fair-use, but i may try to track down the estate to secure permission. that said, i've uploaded them to my personal server, where the copyright issues are my headache an nobody else's, so if anyone would like to view them, you may: snapshotportrait Anastrophe (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I like them both, especially the one with Tillich at his desk. His head looks huge in that photo. The portrait is more classical looking, but the other one being color and a bit unique makes it just as interesting. I remember seeing a particularly striking portrait of him in an academic journal once (Journal of Religion?.. issue 45/46??). It was of Tillich in his later years, hands clasped in an almost prayer-like gesture as he was obviously in deep thought. I think it was taken at a conference or something. Jonalexdeval (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

apparently the color snapshot at the desk was taken by hannah tillich - and she is deceased as well, which make securing permission for reproduction a serious task as with the portrait. very frustrating. Anastrophe (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Format for Article

Just looking at the Karl Barth article, one option would be to construct this one in a similar way: focusing on broad, biography-oriented sections which break the article into Early Life, Education/Influences, Theology, Political Views & Religious Socialism, etc. Under Theology could be short sections on The Systematic Theology, Courage to Be, Sermons, and possibly Philosophy of Religion. Jonalexdeval (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks a good model. The main biography section is at the moment a bit complicated because it mixes the nuts-and-bolts biography with the timeline for his publications and theological development. The detail on the latter would be better somewhere in the theology section. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Gordon and Anastrophe, please stop deleting my contributions to talk. They are not "disruptive"; they are intelligently written, well reasoned, and correct. The fact that you happen to disagree with my views is no excuse for censorship. I have correctly described Tillich's method of correlation. You have incorrectly described it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am equally entitled to mine. Your excuse that my opinion is not "mainstream" is irrelevant.

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies concerning vandalism. misrepresenting things as vandalism which are not so is not helpful, and as disruptive to the commerce we're engaged in here as actual vandalism. please READ the second section of this page. the previous discussion has been archived. you have not been censored. however, it must be pointed out further: other editors are fully within their rights to remove comments from the talk page that are not focused specifically upon article improvement. long discourses upon and justifications for your viewpoint, that in no way directly address the article itself, are discouraged, and may be removed, as they are disruptive to our primary task. wikipedia's fundamental rules encompass a number of principles which are tightly interlinked. pushing a point of view about tillich that is outside of the mainstream opinion of him and his work is not acceptable. it may be noted, but it must be given weight appropriate to how widely held that view is. the previous revision of this article gave all weight to this minority viewpoint. it also contained considerable volumes of synthesis as well as being far too detailed for a general encyclopedia biography. last but not least, like it or not, wikipedia runs by consensus. you have made your arguments, others have made theirs, and the consensus is not with you on this. it's time to let this battle go, and work towards creating a good quality, general audience encyclopedia biography of Paul Tillich. Anastrophe (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My accusation of censorship does not refer to the archiving; it refers to your erasing my post-archiving criticism of the article’s false explanation of Tillich’s method of correlation. You try to rationalize your censoring my factually oriented (many quotations from Tillich) criticism of the interpretation you defend by claiming that my remarks are “not focused specifically on article improvement.” But my remarks were focused on article improvement. I was pointing out (1) why the “questions and answers” interpretation borrowed from McKelway is false and (2) that the real method of correlation involves correlation of analogous theological and philosophical concepts.

I provided quotations in which Tillich specifically said the two members of each of three pairs were “correlated – God and being, revelation and reason, the Son and “existence” (a Hegelian word for antithesis). I also identified many other analogical theology-philosophy correlations used by Tillich. I provided a quotation showing that these individual correlations are part of Tillich’s broader plan to achieve what Tillich called “a unity [synthesis]of theology and philosophy.” I pointed to Tillich’s statement that “Philosophy and theology . . . are correlated,” and noted that Tillich said that even in his student years he “hoped that the great synthesis between Christianity [theology] and humanism [philosophy] could be achieved.” All of this has a direct bearing on the article’s inaccuracy.

Your argument that my views about Tillich are “outside the mainstream” are both irrelevant and false. They are irrelevant because majority vote is not the way truth is achieved. (Consult the belief systems of Muslim and Hindu nations for evidence on this point.)

Your argument is false because my view that Tillich is an atheist is as mainstream as any other view. At least 12 interpreters have directly or indirectly labeled Tillich an atheist, sometimes by calling him a pantheist. These interpreters are Sidney Hook (1961), Walter Kaufmann (1961), David Freeman (1962), Kenneth Hamilton (1963), Alasdair M MacIntyre (1963), Bernard Martin (1963), John A. T. Robinson (1963), J. Heywood Thomas (1963), Guyton Hammond (1966), Nels Ferre (1966), William Rowe (1968), Leonard Wheat (1970). Several others have expressed uncertainty concerning whether Tillich is a theist. Now, how many interpreters can you name who have affirmed that Tillich believes in the God of theism?

You say “Wikipedia runs by consensus.” That’s not exactly correct. Wiki’s administrators operate by consensus but, as you warned me when I first began editing this article, you can expect to be “edited mercilessly” by other editors (contrasted with administrators) who consider your contributions incorrect – and this realistically applies also to the contributions of those like yourself who restore deleted errors.

More important, despite your constantly invoking your version of Wiki policy (policies that Wiki policy says are “made to be broken”), you have violated Wiki’s policy of “assume good faith.” I quote it here:

• Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
• If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives.

“To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. Consider using talk pages to clearly explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same.”

Despite this policy, and also despite the related policy calling for courtesy, you accused me of bad faith by asserting that my edits were motivated by a desire to “discredit Tillich.” Totally false – and a gross violation of Wiki policy. Moreover, definitely not justification for censoring my Talk page arguments, thereby preventing others from judging for themselves which interpretation is correct. Censorship of the arguments and evidence of those who disagree with you is not the proper way to achieve your goal of consensus.

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

i so enjoy how you've taken up the AGF cause, now that it's convenient for you. you ignored it when i challenged you on several occasions for your projecting motive upon me, and failing to AGF with me. be that as it may, there's so much factually wrong above, not least of which being that i've never removed your comments from this talk page, that i'm just going to do my best to ignore you. 'assume good faith' goes only so far as the point at which an editor makes it clear that his motives are destructive to the encyclopedia. your insistence on promoting a minority viewpoint about tillich as the only "correct" interpretation simply won't stand. sadly, tillich is not alive to defend himself from your attacks. but i'm quite sure that if he had been asked the simple question "are you an atheist - yes or no?" his response would have been 'no'. that's my personal interpretation. you're welcome to your personal interpretation of tillich. just don't try to force it upon this biography. Anastrophe (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You write, "I've never removed your comments from this talk page." Untrue. Post-archive, on the present (new) talk page, you removed my explanation of "The Real Method of Correlation," which showed why the pseudoexplanation you keep restoring to the article is false. In other words, you used censorship to suppress discussion of the article's accuracy.

this will be my last comment in response to you, because my good will is utterly spent in dealing with your poisonous methods. i did not remove your comments from this talk page. period. end of story. where's the diff? you can't provide one, because you are completely, totally, wrong. i have never removed your comments from this talk page. it's as simple as that. prattling on, over and over with false accusations like the above are good enough reason for me to close the book on this faux communication. i cannot waste another moment of my life dealing with you. Anastrophe (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, somebody deleted my refutation of the question-and-answer interpretation of Tillich's method of correlation. I assumed, apparently erroneously (and on the basis of your previously having impugned my motives), that it was you. I'll take your word for that it wasn't you; perhaps it was Gordon. In any case, I apologize for the hasty assumption.

Saul Tillich (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you choose to characterize arguments showing that Tillich was an atheist as "attacks" on Tillich -- just as you previously (in your archived remarks) accused me of trying to "discredit" Tillich? As far as I'm concerned, it makes no difference whether Tillich is a theist, a pantheistic or mystical atheist, or a totally nonsupernaturalistic atheist. My interest is a scholarly one: accuracy. I think all of the other twelve interpreters who regard Tillich as an atheist -- except Kaufmann, Freeman, and Ferre -- would say the same thing about their interests.

When you say my regarding Tillich as an atheist is just a "personal interpretation" and not "mainstream," you simply ignore those twelve interpreters who agree with me. I again challenge you to name a dozen interpreters -- your "mainstream" -- who say Tillich is a theist, someone whose God is a rational, self-conscious supernatural being. Your own personal opinion that Tillich is a theist seems to be the minority view.

Saul Tillich (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To Saul Tillich: I do not think your statements about the method of correlation are in contradiction to what is presently in the article on that subject. The “questions and answers” paradigm appears in the STI and also in Biblical Religion and the Search for Ultimate Reality (BRSUR, 58). It is not really borrowed from McKelway so much as it is directly lifted from terminology in primary works. You are right that the pairs of concepts forming the headings of each section of the ST are indeed correlated. I did not mention that in my summary, but it might be a good thing to incorporate eventually. As far as Tillich being an atheist, that is a critical opinion of an incredibly small minority of "scholars". I say "scholars" because most all serious theologians--and certainly those who've studied Tillich carefully--would raise an eyebrow or two in visible consternation at any suggestion that the man or his work could be called "atheistic". A figure like Tillich calls for far too much nuance for such broad labels. Furthermore, many of the accusatory critics who are fond of labes like "atheist" are not sympathetic with Tillich's style or method from the get-go on account of their background in predominately analytic or pragmatic philosophy. Also, this is not an article on what Paul Tillich’s critics thought about Paul Tillich. It is an attempt to summarily present his own life and thought in a way that would not stand in direct contradiction to what he thought or wrote of himself. Since Tillich did not and never would have called himself an “atheist”, it is misleading to characterize him as such in an encyclopedia article (other than to relegate it to a possible section on criticism). It is true that no treatment or summary of a subject or body of work can reasonably be expected to comply perfectly with the subject's own statements or manifestly self-evident articulations, but it IS reasonable that such a summary treatment should not stand in stark opposition to what are quite obviously well-accepted loci of reasonable interpretations of primary sources. Jonalexdeval (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, many of the accusatory critics who are fond of labels like "atheist" are not sympathetic with Tillich's style or method from the get-go on account of their background in predominately analytic or pragmatic philosophy.

Or, conversely, ones from the hard-line theist end of the spectrum who treat as "atheism" anything that diverges from traditional personal-God theism.

The issue, however, seems to me to be one of WP:SYNTH. How can we be sure that those twelve sources aren't cherry-picked to present a particular slant? The test is to go, as I've said previously, to more general secondary/tertiary sources with reliable reputations and see if they summarise Tillich as an atheist. Do Encyclopædia Britannica, his Times obituary, Who's Who in the Twentieth Century, OUP 1999, the Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, or the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. No.

EB, in particular, specifically rejects it:

Those who see him as an advocate of agnosticism or atheism, however, may have misunderstood his intent. He rejected the anthropomorphic “personal God” of popular Christianity, but he did not deny the reality of God, as the conventional atheist has done. Modern “Christian atheists” who cite Tillich in support of their “God is dead” claim overlook the fact that for Tillich the disappearance of an inadequate concept of God was the beginning of a grander vision of God

(And I'm sure US equivalents can be found). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that “many of the [twelve] accusatory critics” who call Tillich an atheist are unsympathetic to him because they are philosophers. That is unadulterated nonsense. Only two (Kaufmann and Hook) are philosophers (Hook certainly isn’t “accusatory”), one (Martin) is a rabbi (and definitely not “accusatory”), one is a political scientist-economist, and eight are students of theology. Your implicit belief that only theologians are capable of objectively interpreting Tillich (or even capable?) is incredibly biased. Philosophers and political scientists are actually better qualified than divinity students, because (a) they are generally familiar with Hegelian dialectics, which is the background of Tillich’s thought, (b) they are not predisposed to believe that a Christian theologian could not be an atheist, and (c) Tillich is an existential philosopher as well as a theologian (he was a professor of philosophical theology at Union).

Atheism is indeed “anything that diverges from traditional personal-God theism.” Where did you get the idea that it could be something else – except perhaps a panentheist (but not a pantheist) or a deist (technically a deist is an atheist, but I wouldn’t quibble about this). Why are you implicitly asserting that metaphysical interpretations of Tillich make him a theist, hence not an atheist? That’s nonsense. Are you going to deny that Hegel and Spinoza (pantheists) were atheists?

You ask, “How can we be sure that those twelve sources aren't cherry-picked to present a particular slant?” And just what is “cherry-picked,” as opposed to just plain “picked,” supposed to imply? Of course they were picked! I picked out the 12 interpreters who classify Tillich as an atheist. I was refuting the Anastrophe-Gordon thesis that atheistic interpretations are out of the “mainstream” and thus shouldn’t be mentioned in the article. What’s so wicked or irrational or tricky about that? Now I’m inviting you to “cherry-pick” your own set of theistic interpreters so as to justify your claim that theistic interpretations represent the “mainstream.”

You say, “The test is to go, as I've said previously, to more general secondary/tertiary sources with reliable reputations and see if they summarise Tillich as an atheist.” Keep your eye on the ball. The issue we’re discussing at the moment is whether “mainstream” opinion denies Tillich’s atheism. That issue calls for primary sources, not for a superficial summary by a paid article-writer who has not immersed himself/herself in Tillich’s theology (and doesn’t need to, because he is just writing a summary and may be relying on just one or two primary sources). I’m asking you to name your primary sources. Apparently you can’t.

You say Tillich cannot be an atheist because he “did not deny the reality of God.” But he did deny the reality of the God of theism. He endorsed only the reality of “the God above the God of theism.” That God happens to be humanity, but even if it were Life (Hammond) or Love (Robinson) or some other nonsupernatural God or even a supernatural “essence” embodied in everything (Hegel) or everything natural (Spinoza), the God above God would not be the God of theism – which means Tillich would still be an atheist.

Furthermore, Tillich DID deny the reality of the God of theism. “If existence refers to something which can be found within the whole of reality, no divine being exists” (Tillich, 1957, p. 47). Tillich said that his concept of religion “has little in common with the description of religion as the belief in the existence of a highest being called God: (Tillich, 1959, p. 40). “Ordinary theism has made God a heavenly, completely perfect person who resides above the world and mankind. The protest of atheism against such a highest person is correct” (Tillich, 1951, p. 245). “Atheism is the correct response to the ‘objectively’ existing God of literalistic thought” (Tilllich, 1966, p. 65). “In making God an object besides other objects, the existence and nature of which are matters of argument, theology supports the escape to atheism. . . . [The atheist] is perfectly justified in destroying such a phantom” (Tillich, 1948b, p. 45). “God is being-itself, not a being” (Tillich, 1951, p. 237).

You say that “for Tillich the disappearance of an inadequate concept of God was the beginning of a grander vision of God.” Agreed. We just don’t agree on what this “grander vision of God” – the God above the God of theism – is. You apparently think this God is a being who should not be called a “being” because . . . too far above man? no arms and legs? doesn’t consign sinners to a hell of fire? But I know the higher God is a dialectical God who is nonsupernatural; “he” (the symbolic term for “it”) is a dialectical synthesis of (1) the thesis, theism, or Yes to God + Yes to supernaturalism in general and (2) the antithesis, atheism, or No to God + No to supernaturalism in general, which gives the synthesis of Yes to God + No to supernaturalism = Yes to a nonsupernatural God, the God above the God of theism. This God is “not a being” – not one being – because it is billions of human beings, humanity, one composed of many.

Saul Tillich (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Like Anastrophe and Gordon, you are ignoring the evidence when you write that Tillich’s atheism is merely the opinion of “an incredibly small minority of ‘scholars.’” I named a dozen of those scholars. If this is an “incredibly small minority,” you should be able to name at least 48 scholars who have published interpretations affirming that Tillich is a theist. Those 48, if you can find them, will turn my 12 into an “incredibly small minority” of 12/60 = 20%. But for now, those 12 scholars are a majority.

How can you possibly justify saying that Tillich’s supposed belief that God is a supernatural being is “well-accepted.” That view is widely rejected. You have your head in the sand.

I don’t need to be told where the Questions and Answers bit appears. I also know that it can’t be taken literally, because there are no question and answers. I challenge you to name six, or even one, of those alleged-to-exist correlative “Questions,” supporting each question with a sourced quotation from Tillich. Then tell us what Tillich’s answers are. There won’t be any answers, because there aren’t any questions. “Questions” is a symbol for philosophy, “Answers” a symbol for theology. Tillich is correlating philosophy and theology to produce what he calls a “philosophical theology.” “Philosophy and theology,” he wrote, “are not separated and they are not identical, but they are correlated” (Tillich, 1948, p. xxii).

The simple truth is, Tillich’s Systematic Theology does not follow a question-and-answer format. The questions aren’t there. Neither are the answers.

These are the principal theology-philosophy correlated (analogous) concepts:

• God and being: Tillich specifically refers to “the correlation of being and God.”
• The Trinity and a thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic: “trinitarian thinking is dialectical.”
• Father and thesis
• Son and antithesis
• Holy Spirit and synthesis
• The Fall and the movement from thesis (union with God) to antithesis (separation from God)
• Sin and self-estrangement
• Salvation and the movement from antithesis (above) to reunion with God (union with new God)
• Revelation with reason, which produces “the correlation of revelation and reason).
• The Kingdom of God and philosophy’s utopias (e.g., Marx’s communism).

You cite Ultimate Concern: Tillich in Dialogue. You might want to read it more carefully. In it you will find these statements pointing to Tillich’s atheism.

• “As for the mythology concerning the third person of the Trinity coming down from heaven – forget all about it” (p. 77). Compare: “The doctrine of the Trinity does not affirm the logical nonsense that three is one and one is three; it describes in dialectical terms the inner movement of the divine life as an eternal separation from itself and return to itself [separation from God, the God of theism, then returning to God, a new God, the God above the God of theism – Yes, No, Yes]” (Tillich, 1951, p. 56).
• If a person answers Yes to the question, “Was Jesus the Son of God?” that person is “guilty of crude mythology” (p. 90). Compare: “If the Christ – a transcendent, divine being – appears in the fullness of time, lives, dies and is resurrected, this is an historical myth” (Tillich, 1957, p. 54).
• Question from student: “Why couldn’t there be some supernatural power [implicitly God] at work here that is actually suspending the laws of nature?” Tillich: “All these questions,if taken literally, are nonsense. . . You approach something here that is fundamental to all my thinking – the antisupernaturalistic attitude. . . .I would recommend the one section about reason and revelation in the first volume of my systematic Theology, where I deal extensively with miracle, inspiration, ecstasy, and all these concepts, and try to interpret them in a nonsupernaturalistic – and that would also mean nonsuperstitious – way” (pp. 157-58).
• Student: “In Sunday school, we learned that miracles imply a ‘suspension of the laws of nature.’” Tillich: “Now if you define a miracle like this, then I would simply say that this is a demonic distortion of the meaning of miracle in the New Testament” (pp. 158-59).

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are bordering on the inane. I am aware that Tillich's "question" and "answer" do not necessarily refer to any set of concrete questions or answers. And it is not a mere matter of finding 48 or 50 or even 200 scholars to support my claim that Tillich is not considered an atheist in the mainstream literature. Rather, it is a matter of every serious encyclopedia and/or third party source within philosophy and theology refusing to utilize such terms in an overly simplistic fashion. Of course Tillich DOES NOT believe that God is a supernatural being (God is not A being). But this does not mean that he is not a theist. Your notion of "theism" is apparently myopic. Jonalexdeval (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) You may be “aware that Tillich's ‘question" and "answer’ do not necessarily refer to any set of concrete questions or answers,” but you do not seem to be aware that the absence of actual questions and answers leaves your interpretation empty of substance. Tillich is not correlating questions and answers.

(2) Your claims that (a) Tillich is not considered an atheist in the "mainstream" literature and (b) only a tiny minority of interpreters consider him an atheist are vitiated by the 12 interpreters I named who regard him as an atheist. To support your absurd and indefensible claim that these 12 are a “tiny minority,” you would have to produce at least four or five times as many interpreters who deny Tillich’s atheism. As it happens, you can’t even produce 12 -- perhaps not even 6. Some mainstream!

(3) Whatever your notion of theism is, it is wrong if it denies that the God of theism is a being. You like objective reference books:

• The OED defines God as “(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe; the supreme being.”
• The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines God as “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.”
• The American Heritage Dictionary defines God (when capitalized) as “a perfect being conceived as the creator of the universe, and worshiped in monotheistic religions.”

Perhaps you think that to qualify as a being God must have arms and legs as did the Old Testament God, or that God must be angry and vindictive and inclined to cast sinners into hell, or spatially localized, or who knows what else – you seem to lack the courage to say. But, to be a being, God does not necessarily need to have any of those characteristics. All he needs to have are certain mental characteristics, primarily (a) rationality (greatly magnified beyond the level of human beings, of course), (b) self-consciousness, and (c) where theism is concerned, enough concern about humans to be capable of some sort of “personal” relationship. Other mental characteristics relating to personality and intent are matters of broad disagreement; even God’s willingness or ability to respond to prayer is a matter of disagreement among Christians. Most people nowadays, and certainly most educated people, think of God as being omnipresent rather than spatially localized; much less do people think of God as sitting on a throne in heaven with Jesus literally at his right hand. But none of these modern or contentious views have any bearing on whether God is a being. Tillich himself wrote, “The God of theological theism is a being beside others and as such a part of the whole of reality” (Courage, p. 184).

So, contrary to what you say, Tillich’s saying that God is “not A being” does mean that he is not a theist. Reflect on why Tillich italicizes the “a.” A means one; you can’t say “a beings.” Tillich is not emphasizing “being.” He is emphasizing that God is not one entity. Tillich's God is therefore more than one being – many human beings, humanity. That means Tillich is an atheist.

Saul Tillich (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Snipped from biography

Text for re-use in "development of theology" section. Also needs assessment for accuracy of summary. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

During 1924-25 he was a Professor of Theology at the University of Marburg, where he began to develop his systematic theology. He even taught a course on it during the last of his three terms. In this course be began using his own theological terminology, a subject of fascination for the students. God became "the Unconditioned", a term whose meaning the students could not have understood but which actually means that God–humanity–is not subject to the condition that parts of the human race are excluded; exclusivity constitutes "demonism" (Wheat, 1970, pp. 20-21, 39, 144, 149-53, 198, 209).

The Courage to Be. The latter book, called "his masterpiece" in the Pauks’s biography of Tillich (p. 225), was based on his 1950 Dwight H. Terry lectures at Yale. This is the book where Tillich espoused "the God above the God of theism" (Tillich,1952, pp. 182-90). He depicted this higher God as the answer to a series of No’s to the supernatural that cause existential human anxiety.

The information about Tillich's terminology at Marburg comes from pages 95-96 of the Pauk biography.

Regarding The Courage to Be, here are some things Tillich says on the last ten pages of the book: "There are no valid arguments for the existence of God. . . . The content of absolute faith is 'The God above God.' Absolute faith . . . takes the radical doubt, the doubt about God, into itself, [and] transcends the theistic idea of God. . . . The God of theological theism is a being beside others and as such a part of the whole of reality. . . . He is seen as a self which has a world, as an ego which is related to a thou, as a cause which is separated from its effect . . . He is a being, not being-itself. As such,. . . he deprives me of my subjectivity . . . [and] appears as the invincible tyrant. This is the deepest root of atheism. It is an atheism which is justified as the reaction against theological theism and its disturbing implications. . . . Only if the God of theism is transcended can the anxiety of doubt and meaninglessness be taken into the courage to be. . . . All forms of courage are re-established in the power of the God above the God of theism. The courage to be is rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doubt."

Saul Tillich (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see a third-party summary of the thrust of the lectures and book. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Norm": Jesus as the Christ

The article’s “explanation” of Tillich’s “the norm” is misleading, out of place (it doesn’t belong under the “Correlation” heading), and extremely incomplete – all of which problems reflect the author’s profound misunderstanding of what “the norm” is about.

Way back in 1911, when he was still a student, Tillich presented to friends some “theses” that “raised and attempted to answer the question” of how Christian theology could proceed “if the non-existence of the historical Jesus should become historically probable” (Hopper,1968, pp.27-28). Tillich’s answer, an answer that became “the norm,” was to base theology (meaning Tillich’s theology”) not on (1) the historical Jesus, in whose existence Tillich has no real doubts, but on (2) the mythological “Jesus as the Christ,” in whom Tillich did not believe.

Tillich didn’t believe in the supernatural Christ? “If the Christ – a transcendent divine being – appears in the fullness of time,lives, dies, and is resurrected, this is an historical myth” (Tillich, 1957b, p. 54). Giving an example of his symbolism, Tillich wrote, “As an example, look at the one small sentence: ‘God has sent his son.’” This statement, he says, “if taken literally is absurd” (Tillich, 1959, pp. 62-63). When a student asked why it was necessary for Jesus to be tempted if Jesus was the Son of God, Tillich replied that the student was “describing the superstitious concept of the Son of God” (Tillich, 1965, pp.136-37). How about the Johannine concept holding that Jesus was God incarnate (Jn. 1:14) rather than the Son of God? “If the engeneto in the Johanninine sentence, Logos sarx engeneto, the ‘Word became flesh,’ is pressed, we are in the midst of a mythology of metamorphosis” (Tillich, 1957a, p. 149). “Protestantism [Tillich’s version] . . . does not deny the idea of Incarnation, but it removes the pagan connotations and rejects its supranaturalistic interpretation” (ibid.). Consider too that Christianity’s Christ is a divine savior whose death on the cross made it possible for people to be “saved” – to go to heaven after dying. But without salvation, there can be no savior, no Christ, and Tillich regards supernatural salvation as a superstition: “Immortality” is just a “popular superstition” (Tillich, 1963a, pp. 409-10), and “man should not boast of having an immortal soul” (Tillich, 1957b, p. 36).

Yet it the mythological Christ, not the real historical Jesus, that Tillich adopts as his norm. “A Christianity which does not assert that Jesus of Nazareth [the historical Jesus] is sacrificed to [replaced by] Jesus as the Christ [as ‘the norm’] is just one more religion among others” (Tillich, 1951, p. 135). Why does Tillich insist that the Christ, in whom Tillich does not believe, rather than the historical Jesus be his “norm”? To begin with, we must understand what “the norm” means. A norm is a standard or criterion, something by which something else is judged. Tillich is using “Jesus as the Christ” as a standard by which a theology (his theology) is validated.

Next comes the part Jonalexdeval (and his authority, McKelway) leaves out. “Jesus as the Christ”must be the norm because the early Church’s Council of Nicaea (AD 325), and later the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), declared that Jesus was fully God and fully man rather than part God and part man. “The decision of Nicaea saved Christianity from a relapse to a cult of half-gods” (Tillich, 1957a, p. 144). A Christ who “could only be a half-god who at the same time is half-man” could not serve as the norm (ibid., p. 93). Tillich’s point, a well-hidden point as it happens, is this: If God is a supernatural being, 100 percent God plus 100 percent man is arithmetic nonsense, because the parts of a person can add only to 100 percent, not 200 percent. But there is a definition of God that makes God “fully God and fully man.”

Now put your thinking cap on. How can Tillich define God in a way that makes God “fully god and fully man”? Well, God by any definition is fully God – as a matter of definition. The God of theism, the God of deism, the God of pantheism, the God of mysticism, and such nonsupernatural Gods as Love (Robinson), Life (Hammond’s interpretation of Tillich’s God), and humanity are all “fully God” if defined as God.

But how can a God be, at the same time, “fully man”?

• Could Tillich’s God be the God of pantheism, a mindless metaphysical “essence” found in everything that exists in the universe, including man? No, because the God of pantheism is only partly man and mostly other things such as stars, trees, mountains, raindrops, and squirrels.
• Could the God above God be the God of theism or the God of deism? No: a theistic or deistic God has certain human characteristics – rational, self-conscious, possibly loving, possibly capable of anger and vengeance – but is certainly not human, not “fully man.”
• Could Tillich’s God be Love or Life? No, because then God would not be even partly man.
• Could Tillich’s God be all living creatures, including animals, birds, fish, and man? Absolutely not: then God would be only partly man.
• Could Tillich’s God be humanity? Yes, because if God is defined a humanity, God is “fully God and fully man.”

Therefore, fully God and fully man is “how to think the unity of a completely human with a completely divine nature” (Tillich, 1957a, p. 142). Hence, in Jesus as the Christ “Christian theology has received a foundation . . . which is absolutely concrete [particular, individual humans] and universal [general, humanity] at the same time” (Tillich, 1951, p. 16).

Tillich’s norm for judging theology, then, requires that a theology be based on the premise that God and man are identical. In such a theology, God is man–humanity. Of all the theologies ever written, only Tillich’s can meet this requirement.

I realize that the other contributors to Talk have closed minds when it comes to the possibility that Tillich’s God is nonsupernatural, or even something other than a supernatural being, but the article simply cannot ignore the fact that “the norm,” as explained by Tillich, calls for a theology whose God is “fully God and fully man,” not part God and part man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul Tillich (talk • contribs) 23:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please could you keep your comments terse? Whether you intend it or not, these lengthy polemics are disruptive to collaborative working, since no-one is inclined to read 1000-word essays. You might ponder the possibility that this theological diarrhea makes readers less likely to think you have anything worthwhile to say.

Plus see the section below: the whole line of argument, constructing a narrative based purely on your own reading of primary sources, is a bigtime breach of WP:NOR, section WP:PSTS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no way anything is going to get accomplished with this guy around. Jonalexdeval (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of sources

I should have checked this out sooner.

Saul Tillich

That issue calls for primary sources, not for a superficial summary by a paid article-writer who has not immersed himself/herself in Tillich’s theology (and doesn’t need to, because he is just writing a summary and may be relying on just one or two primary sources). I’m asking you to name your primary sources. Apparently you can’t.

See the Wikipedia:No original research policy: the section Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources It explains why I'm not even going to try. Primary sources are massively easy to misuse. For that reason, it's policy that anything from primary sources should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

And also:

• All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

So working purely by poring over Tillich and quoting various passages to prove ... whatever ... such as in the section above is simply not on. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as you're lawyering (which is contrary to Wikipedia policy!), I think I'll do some lawyering of my own. The following comes from Wikipedia's rules:

The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been". Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider.

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct: older versions of a page remain in the revision history and can be restored. If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. So don't worry. Be bold, and enjoy helping to build this free encyclopedia.

Despite its name, "Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. Zero. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated.

Here are several other things that "Ignore all rules" does and does not mean:

• You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating.
• Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.)
• Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labelled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of a great many editors. (See also Wikipedia:Consensus.)
• Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. (See also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy.)
• WikiLawyering doesn't work. Loopholes and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; not moot court, nor nomic, nor Mao.
• The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored.
• Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you. (See also Wikipedia:Civility.) Saul Tillich (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The rules seem fairly commonsensical to me. The fact that you've managed to violate them merely means that your "research" methods are so beyond what is considered acceptable as to necessitate your reprobation in general. There is a reason why the phrase "spirit of the rule" still has the word "rule" in it. The spirit can enlighten the rule, but the rule guards against a destructive spirit. Jonalexdeval (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And it's not wikilawyering to ask someone to stop breaching a core policy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What the Encyclopedias Say

My three adversaries believe that (1) Tillich could not possibly be an atheist – they harbor the false belief that only a “tiny minority” (it’s actually a strong majority) of Tillich’s interpreters consider him an atheist – and (2) basing the Wiki article on some other encyclopedia article will uphold their position. Below are the relevant quotations from the Tillich articles in the Macmillan/Free Press Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Religion, and Encyclopedia Americana.

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Subhead “God”: “He [Tillich] did not believe . . . in particular of the existence of a personal God. Tillich did not, in fact, accept the notion of a personal deity. For him, the doctrine of a supernatural person, like all religious doctrines, is to be conceived as an attempt to symbolize an ultimate reality, being-itself. . . . If the God of theism is a person, the often repeated charge that Tillich is really an atheist thus seems justified.” –p. 125

Subhead “Anxiety,” discussing The Courage to Be: “By participating in God, who is the infinite power to resist the threat of nonbeing, man acquires the courage to exist fully, even in the face of anxiety.” – p. 124

Here the key word is “participating.” Man, according to Tillich, participates in (is a part of) God. That can mean only one of three things:

• Tillich is a pantheist, defined as one who believes God is an intangible metaphysical “essence” within everything in the universe, including man (Hegel), or else everything in nature, excluding man-made things (Spinoza) but including man. But Tillich has both denied and attacked both forms of pantheism. He isn’t a pantheist.
• Tillich is an eastern-type (nontheistic) mystic who believes in mystical union (“communion,” “ecstasy”) with an impersonal metaphysical force. But Tilllich has both denied and attacked mysticism. He isn’t a mystic.
• Tillich’s God is humanity, in which each of us participates. Tillich said God is man’s "ultimate concern." And he, speaking as a humanist (one who says moral laws must come from humans, not from a supernatural being), said “For humanism, the divine is manifest in the human; the ultimate concern [God] of man is man.” And to be validated by “the norm,” God must be “fully God and fully man.”

Encyclopedia of Religion. "As a whole, Tillich’s religious thought . . . does not fit into any standard classification. Tillich was not a positivist (but neither was he a rationalist); he was not a supranaturalist (but neither was he a naturalist [pantheist].” – p. 533Saul Tillich (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If he was “not a supranaturalist,” he was an atheist, because all theists are supranaturalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul Tillich (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Saul Tillich (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Americana. “Tillich was born into the family of a Lutheran pastor in the village of Starzeddel, Prussia, on Aug. 20, 1886. He studied at the universities of Berlin, Tübingen, Halle, and Breslau. In 1912 he was ordained a minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. From 1914 to 1918 he was a chaplain in the German Army. After ministering to the wounded and dying and reading Nietzsche's declarations of the "death of God," he concluded that "the traditional concept of God" indeed was dead. Throughout the rest of his career he sought to redefine the concept and to direct men to "the God beyond God." Saul Tillich (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR again. Sure, we can quote what the encyclopedias say - assuming it's a neutral summary - but your editorial gloss on what they mean, such as that analysis of "participating", is still completely original research. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are confused, Gordon. The rules concerning original research apply to the article, not to what is said or argued on the talk page. And I notice that you are unable to refute my analysis of "participates in." Saul Tillich (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But you want these conclusions to go in the article. If they are based on these arguments, then they become original research if used. And I don't need to refute it, because as your personal analysis it can't be used in the article, so can be ignored. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point my goal is not to get the truth into the article but to keep your falsehoods out of the article. Those falsehoods include (1) the idea that Tillich's "God above the God of theism" is still the God of theism, because Tillich could not possibly be an atheist, (2) the related idea that he is not an atheist, despite the his disavowal of "all" supernaturalism, (3) your false interpretation of his "method of correlation," which you say correlates questions and answers but I say correlates analogous theological and philosophical concept, and (4) your false assertion that Tillich's "Jesus as the Christ" norm affirms that Jesus was supernatural (Tillich says he doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus) whereas it actually affirms that Tillich's "God above God" is "fully God and fully man" rather than part God and part man.Saul Tillich (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Subhead “God”: “He [Tillich] did not believe . . . in particular of the existence of a personal God. Tillich did not, in fact, accept the notion of a personal deity. For him, the doctrine of a supernatural person, like all religious doctrines, is to be conceived as an attempt to symbolize an ultimate reality, being-itself. . . . If the God of theism is a person, the often repeated charge that Tillich is really an atheist thus seems justified.” –p. 125

Obviously contains a conditional statement. The meaning of "theism" is thus also admitted to be in question. Tillich states repeatedly that God is personal, though not a person.

Read the quotation more carefully. The author does not admit anything with his "If" statement. He is simply calling attention to what his conclusion about Tillich's atheism is based on. Saul Tillich (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's calling attention to reasons why some might think that Tillich is an "atheist". But there is no final judgment in that excerpt. Jonalexdeval (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The author is not referring to what "some might think." Your interpretation is outrageous. He clearly says Tillich did not believe in the existence of a personal God, which is what the God of theism is by any interpretation of theism (contrasted with deism and panetheism). He also clearly says that, for Tillich, "God" is just a symbol, not a reality. God happens to be a symbol for humanity, the only God that is (in accordance with "the norm") "fully God and fully man."Saul Tillich (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also a highly disingenuous selective quotation. The whole final sentence is:

"If the God of theism is a person, the often repeated charge that Tillich is really an atheist thus seems justified; yet Tillich can point out that in the past Christian theology has repeatedly found difficulty in the notion that God is a person in any straightforward or literal sense".

So it's ultimately sitting on the fence about the validity of deciding Tillich to be an atheist for his views about the personhood of God, since even Christian theology isn't clear on what precisely that personhood entails. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

First, regarding your charge that the quotation is "selective," it was your idea -- not mine -- to base the Wiki article on an encyclopedia article. I'm showing you that three encyclopedias agree with me that Tillich was an atheist. I am doing this by using a specific source that falls in the category that you advocated using -- an encyclopedia. And in the process I am providing further evidence that your ridiculous claim that only a "tiny minority" of interpreters regard Tillich as an atheist is false. We now have 12 regular interpreters plus 3 encyclopedia articles that classify Tillich as an atheist.

Second, "in the past Christian theology has repeatedly found difficulty in the notion that God is a person in any straightforward or literal sense" refers to the sort of literalism that (a) treats God as an anthropomorphic person who "created man in his own image and (b) treats God as spatially localized, sitting on a throne in heaven, with Jesus (according to the Apostles' Creed) literally sitting at his right hand. Modern Christianity has indeed "found difficulty with" these outdated concepts. Modern Christians, at least the better educated and more intelligent ones, think of God in strictly mental (not physical) terms and generally regard him as being omnipresent rather than spatially localized.

Third, your statement that "even Christian theology isn't clear on what precisely that personhood entails" has only a grain of truth, that grain being your word "precisely." I don't know of any modern theologian who upholds the ancient beliefs that personhood requires either physical anthropomorphism or spatial localization (with or without that kingly throne) in a place in the sky called heaven. Personhood nowadays simply means that God is able to establish person-to-person relationships with his subjects through such means as prayer, worship, piety, and whatever else particular subjects think will please God, win favors, or enhance the subject's chances of salvation. If you believe Pat Robertson -- here is where your word "precisely" really gets a workout -- God also establishes a person-to-person relationship by inflicting hurricanes and other disasters (e.g., the World Trade Center disaster) on people to show his displeasure at things they are doing.Saul Tillich (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If he was “not a supranaturalist,” he was an atheist, because all theists are supranaturalists.

Wrong. Tillich differentiates supernaturalism from theism.

Tillich does no such thing, which is why you are unable to produce a quotation from Tillich supporting your position. You are back to your old trick of basing your claims on nothing but imagination and preconceived opinions. The God of theism is and always has been supernatural. Name, if you can, a theist who is not a supernaturalist --someone whose God is not supernatural. Are you under the impression that someone who uses the word God to symbolically or metaphorically refer to a nonsupernatural God is, ipso facto, a theist? Saul Tillich (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't cite because I'm temporarily in a location where I don't have any of my books. I believe you can find appropriate passages in History of Christian Thought for one, about the technical definition of "supernaturalism" in Protestant and Catholic theology. It depends on what one means by "supernatural". It should be obvious that the term in itself is rather contentious. It cannot be limited merely to "miracles" or exceptions in the natural order of things. But even if it were, Tillich's attitude toward the Biblical miracles and historical events such as the resurrection is ambiguous, not entirely negative. They are symbols, yes, but their literal historicity is left to things like his "restitution theory" (STII, somewhere after p. 130 or so) of the resurrection. It is a theory, nothing more, and not critical to faith. And no, I am not necessarily making the claim of your last sentence. I consider theism to be primarily concerned with a personal God, and Tillich's God is personal. Jonalexdeval (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need a book to cite a theist who is not a supernaturalist? And nothing "depends on what one means by supernatural." We all know what supernatural means. It means not belonging to the realm of things science recognizes as natural and, in some instances, capable of violating recognized laws of nature. In the context of Christianity, supernatural things include gods (including the bad god,Satan), angels, demons, witches, ghosts, spirits and spirit possession, miracles, resurrection of the dead (Jesus, Lazarus, and the dead to be resurrected at a future Second Coming of Jesus), bodily ascensions to heaven (Elijah, Jesus, and Mary), hell, heaven, purgatory, limbo, the virgin birth, man created from dust, woman created from Adam's rib, God's act of raining fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, God's turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, divine laws ordained by God, and God's ability to answer prayers through divine interference with the laws of nature. The God of theism has always been supernatural. And Tillich says he does not believe in a supernatural God.

Your statement that "Tillich's attitude toward the Biblical miracles and historical events such as the resurrection is ambiguous, not entirely negative" is totally false. There is no ambiguity. Tillich says he rejects "all" supernaturalism. "If the Christ -- a transcendent divine being -- appears in the fullness of time, lives, dies, and is resurrected, this is an historical myth" (Tillich, 1957b, p.54). "It is a disastrous distortion of the meaning of faith to identify it with the belief in the historical validiity of the Biblical stories" (Tillich, 1957b, p. 87). "It is "fanciful" to think of "dead bodies leaving their graves" (Tillich, 1955, p. 24) and people who think the laws of nature can be suspended (miracles) are "superstitious" (Tillich, 1963b, p.158).Saul Tillich (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Americana. “Tillich was born into the family of a Lutheran pastor in the village of Starzeddel, Prussia, on Aug. 20, 1886. He studied at the universities of Berlin, Tübingen, Halle, and Breslau. In 1912 he was ordained a minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. From 1914 to 1918 he was a chaplain in the German Army. After ministering to the wounded and dying and reading Nietzsche's declarations of the "death of God," he concluded that "the traditional concept of God" indeed was dead. Throughout the rest of his career he sought to redefine the concept and to direct men to "the God beyond God."

Again, so what. There is still no justification for your nearly pathological obsession with the "atheist" label. It is simply a label, overly simplistic and basically meaningless in relation to the complexity of Tillich's thought. We do not further our understanding of Tillich in the slightest by being so concerned with it. Jonalexdeval (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone (meaning you) who does not understand the concept of atheism and thinks it is just an empty label should not be discussing theology. Theism, according to the dictionary, is "Belief in the existence of a god or gods specif.: (a) Monotheism. (b) Belief in the existence of one God, transcending, yet immanent in, the universe; -- disting. from pantheism and deism." Tillich could thus write, "The God of theological theism is a being beside others and as such a part of the whole of reality" (Courage, p. 184). Tillich has repeatedly said there is no such God. For example: "Ordinary theism has made God a heavenly,completely perfect person who resides above the world and mankind. The protest of atheism against such a highest person is correct" (Courage, p. 245). Saul Tillich (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, that is theological theism, not theism per se according to Tillich. Now stop the blatant practice of this weird, twisty, monomaniacal "research" of yours. You obviously do not have a good grasp of Tillich's technical vocabulary, the terms he uses to refer to various historical trends in theology and how he differentiates these from his own thought. Jonalexdeval (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tillich does not have a concept of "theism per se"; that meaningless term is your invention. He does describe three forms of theism, the third of which is "theological theism" and the second of which is theism that emphasizes the divine-human encounter and, Tillich says, is also a part of theological theism. And he says that all three forms of theism are wrong. Again, that makes him an atheist: he will not accept the existence of God under any definition of theism. He calls the God of theological theism -- the God who imposes arbitrary divine laws -- an "invincible tyrant" who merits "an atheism which is justified as the reaction against theological theism and its disturbing implications" (Tillich, 1951, p. 185). He rejects "the God of theism" and calls for "devotion to the God above the God of theism" (ibid., p.188).

As for "Tillich's technical vocabulary," it comes straight from Hegel, and you are the one who does not understand it.Saul Tillich (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

This is going nowhere. I've posted a Wikiquette alert, which is an early-stage dispute resolution measure. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to stop responding to his posts from here on out. Jonalexdeval (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. Classic WP:SOUP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nels F. S. Ferre on Tillich

Nels F. S. Ferre was a professor of theology at Vanderbilt University. A student of his who had had nine courses from Tillich at Union Theological Seminary told Ferre that Tillich did not believe in life after death. Skeptical, Ferre visited Union to hear for himself. Tillich, in line with his policy of being “all things to all men,” initially treated Ferre as one of the innocent whose convictions should not be disturbed. Ferre continues: “But by the time I had phrased my questions with depth and seriousness long enough and often enough, I knew that I had to give up my original understanding of what he taught. He actually did not believe in the Christian God who raises the dead and who works personally in human history.”

In a separate article in Kegley and Bretall’s Tillich volume in the Library of Living Theology series, Ferre writes: “The real problem here is, of course, that since Tillich (with an unflagging zeal) repudiates the supernatural, from his early German writings on, naturally the distinctive difference between the church and ‘secular’ humanism disappears” (p. 258). Tillich's "church" is the body of secular humanists, about which Tillich writes: "For humanism the divine is manifest in the human; the ultimate concern ['God'] of man is man" (Tillich, 1957b, p.63). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul Tillich (talk • contribs) 03:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a viewpoint on Tillich's work. The problem is that you want this article to advocate that viewpoint, which it cannot do. What is relevant is: 1) how widespread is this viewpoint among scholars of Tillich?; and 2) what are the other viewpoints? This article can then summarize all such viewpoints. --Delirium (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph above is not Ferre's "viewpoint on Tillich's work." It is Ferre's viewpoint on Tillich himself. It is the result of a face-to-face conversation in which Ferre kept probing Tillich with questions until Tillich stopped treating Ferre as one of the innocent and let it be known what he really believed. Ferre concluded that Tillich actually did not believe in the Christian God.

The second paragraph IS Ferre's viewpoint on Tillich's work. Ferre concludes that "Tillich (with an unflagging zeal) repudiates the supernatural," which is precisely what I have been saying and which the competing article denies.

As for how widespread Ferre's view is, I have named 12 authors plus the authors of 3 encyclopedia articles -- 15 interpreters -- who consider Tillich an atheist (a pantheist in most cases). That is "widespread" indeed. The books with theistic interpretations are by Soper, McKelway, Tavard, Armbruster, Howlett, and Briesach. Thats just 6 in the theist camp. Six of twenty-one is 29 percent, compared to 71 percent who hold that Tillich is an atheist. Why do you folks call 71 percent a "tiny minority"?Saul Tillich (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Method of correlation

Reverted [1] Saul Tillich: this text drew heavily on personal gloss of primary material, which you have been told repeatedly is original research per WP:PSTS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And I have told you repeatedly that this is not original material. It comes from Wheat, and it has been around since 1970 (that's 38 years). Why do you keep repeating this "original research" canard that I have refuted previously? The principal page references for correlation, given in the article, are pp. 82-90 of Wheat's book. Other page reference for correlation are given elsewhere on this talk page. All primary sources are taken from Wheat's book, but I give the original sources because that is the proper way to give citations (quote from secondary sources only when the primary sources are not available).Saul Tillich (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a more complete set of page references from Wheat, taken from my latest revision of the article: "Philosophy and theology are being correlated to produce a “philosophical theology” (Tillich, 1948a, pp.83, 92-93) that correlates analogous philosophical and theological concepts that jointly symbolize a Tillichian concept (Wheat, 1970, pp. 82-92, 94, 104, 152-53, 174, 189, 196-98, 200-202, 205, 223-24, 232-40, 264). My analysis does what you have been asking for: it bases the article heavily (but not exclusively) on a particular primary source. So stop calling "original research" and "a personal gloss of primary material."Saul Tillich (talk) 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the article on Paul Tillich, though, not the article on "what Wheat thinks of Paul Tillich". Is this a consensus view? Do other Tillich scholars agree? Do they disagree? We need to neutrally document all views, not promote a single one as "correct". --Delirium (talk) 04:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to read the latest revision of my article, which you might have to use "undo" to read. The article has one more section to go.Saul Tillich (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

there you have it. "the latest revision of my article". no clearer statement of the problem we have with this editor can be found. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If not with the words "my article," how would you identify the version you are referring to? We are comparing two versions of the article: one that was apparently written by Jonalexdeval and one that was written by me. There was also an earlier version, which I deleted, which claimed that Tillich was a pantheist. So what words would you have me use in the future to refer to the version I wrote? "The party of the second part's version"? "The Tillich is an atheist version" (contrasted with the "Tillich is a theist version")? Also, how would you identify the competing version that you champion? Quibble about words if you must, but try harder not to be completely ridiculous.Saul Tillich (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

it merely demonstrates your mistaken belief that you own this article. there is no such thing as "my" article on wikipedia. Anastrophe (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Grow up, Anastrophe. You are behaving like a little boy. You are quibbling about terminology when you know full well that I was merely making a distinction between my VERSION of the article and yours. You are the one who seems to regard the article as yours. You make your thoughts clear when you accuse me of "vandalism," "bogus" footnotes, tampering with quotations, and other imagined offenses, all of which accusations you use in an effort to get me censured and blocked from further editing -- so that YOUR article will stand unopposed.Saul Tillich (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What it comes down to is this. Tillich applied the word "theist" to himself, therefore the main body of the article must follow that line of thought. Anything else is part of "Tillich criticism". What you are failing to understand is that the issue of such labels is not fundamentally important. Why? Because the article should simply describe Tillich's thought without recourse to oversimplifications, labels that have pre-packaged connotations. The whole point of Tillich's thought (and that of most serious thinkers) is to get beyond such inadequate distinctions, so reverting back to them in order to describe his thought would be pointless and counterproductive. Jonalexdeval (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite the opposite: Tillich repeatedly and consistently attacked the God of theism and denied that he was a theist in the sense of one who believes in the God of theism. Consider the following:

• In The Courage to Be, Tillich disavowed the God of theism, describing it as “a being beside others and as such a part of the whole of reality,” and he called this God an “invincible tyrant” (Tillich, 1952, p. 185). Tillich then called for allegiance to a higher God, “the God above the God of theism” (ibid., 182-90). The higher God has roots going back to a 1915 pamphlet of Tillich’s that referred to “the God above God” (Hopper, 1967, p. 28).
• Elaborating, Tillich said the God of theism is “the deepest root of atheism, . . . an atheism which is justified as the reaction against theological theism” (Tillich, 1952, p. 185).
• Tillich also wrote that “atheism is the right religious and theological reply” to the concept of “the existence of God” (Tillich, 1951, p.45).
• Similarly, he wrote that “atheism a correct response to the ‘objectively’ existing God of literalistic thought” (Tillich, 1966b, p. 65). “Objectively” is Hegelian terminology (“object”) describing anything in the universe other than the thinker or observer (the “subject”). In other words, an “objective” God is an entity apart from man; man is not part of this God.
• Although Tillich denied that he was an atheist, his denial rested on his redefinition of atheism, which he redefined as disbelief in “the God above the God of theism.” He wrote: “Not the unbeliever [in the God of theism], but rather the believer . . . is the real atheist,” and he described “genuine theism” as “affirmation of God as the Unconditional” (Tillich, 1969, p. 79), where “the Unconditional” is an alternate name for Tillich’s “God above God.” Walter Kaufmann observed that, in Tillich’s words, atheism “can only mean the attempt to remove any ultimate concern – to remain unconcerned about the meaning of one’s existence.” This redefinition inspires Kaufmann’s wry comment that “it turns out that . . .such avowed atheists as Freud and Nietzsche aren’t atheists at all” (Kaufmann, 1961a, pp. 133-34).
• Whatever else “God” implies, the Judeo-Christian God has always been regarded as a benevolent, omniscient supernatural being. But Tillich says God is “not a being” (Tillich, 1951, p. 237) and that “no divine being exists” (Tillich, 1957b, p. 47).
• Whereas the Judeo-Christian God is a SUPERNATURAL being, Tillich repudiated “all” supernaturalism when he called attention to “something . . . that is fundamental to all mythinking – the antisupernaturalistic attitude” (Tillich, 1965, p. 158). Tillich’s God is therefore nonsupernatural, not the God of theism.
• “God” is one of many Christian concepts Tillich has converted to “symbols” by giving them new, nonliteral, nonsupernaturalistic meanings: “God is the basic and universal SYMBOL for what concerns us ultimately. . . . Therefore it cannot be used in its literal sense. To say anything about God in the literal sense of the words used is to say something false about Him. [‘Him’ is another symbol.] The symbolic . . . is the only true way of speaking about God” (Tillich, 1954a, p. 109). You fail to recognize that Tillich’s statements about God that you take literally actually have nonliteral, or symbolic, meanings.

Against this background, I challenge you to produce the quotation where you claim “Tillich applied the word ‘theist’ to himself.” Let’s see the quotation (if it even exists) in full context, with at least two preceding and two following sentences. And say why you conclude he is referring to belief in the God of theism rather than “belief” in the God above the God of theism, humanity.

Another point: You say words like theism, deism, pantheism, atheism, and God are just “labels” and, as such, oversimplifications. Then, having yourself labeled Tillich a “theist” (!), you say the article should describe Tillich the way you have described him – as a theist who believed that God/Logos became flesh – but without recourse to “labels” (except for God and other labels you yourself use). What you disparagingly call labels, however, are actually words – words with generally accepted and well understood meanings. Without words we cannot communicate.

Moreover, what you call labels are rarely “oversimplifications.” Their meanings are clear. Take “theism.” The Routledge Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy says “theism is the belief that [1] there is a God and that God is [2] omnipotent, [3] omniscient, and [4] benevolent, [5] distinct from the universe [i.e., not pantheistic] which [6] he has created and [7] in which he intervenes.” You can find similar definitions of theism in any dictionary. (Take away [4] and [7] and you have deism; also take away [2], [3], [5], and [6], then add [8] man participates in – is part of – God, and you have pantheism.) Tillich has repeatedly rejected the God of theism.

One label that you use, “God,” does oversimplify when used in the context of a discussion of Tillich’s thought, where most of the time God does not mean what it ordinarily means. Yet you use “God” without qualification and without bothering to explain that Tillich generally uses the word in a nonliteral sense. To repeat: “To say anything about God in the literal sense of the words used is to say something false about Him. The symbolic . . . is the only true way of speaking about God” (Tillich, 1954a, p. 109). And you fail to mention that Tillich does not believe in the conventional God of theism.

You also use the labels “estrangement,” “apologetic,” “logos,” “Jesus as the Christ,” and “Christian message” without either clarifying what you think they mean and without your having any understanding of what they mean to Tillich. The issues here are not what words or “labels” we use but (a) what Tillich means by God, whose definition must be understood for the reader to understand anything else about Tillich’s thought, and (b) whether Tillich is a theist, a metaphysician/pantheist, a nontheistic mystic, or an atheist. (Nobody considers him a deist.)Saul Tillich (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not labeled Tillich a theist. I am saying that Tillich's notion of himself as a theist involves his own re-articulation of the concept of theism which differentiates that term from what he considered to be the common, popular conception of theism. I am only trying to confirm what he said of himself, and he claimed that he was a theist, though not a theist if by that term is meant many of the popular notions. So it's not a matter of labels. Rather, it's a matter of differentiating terminology by identifying Tillich's distinctions with regard to these terms. Jonalexdeval (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Tillich Article’s Section on Theology

The article’s “Theology” section pretends to explain, but the author (Jonalexdeval, I think) is merely paraphrasing statements he himself doesn’t understand. At the same time, in referring to “the norm,” which is “Jesus as the Christ,” the author misleads his readers in four ways:

• By failing to say that Tillich, in many ways and in many places, said he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, the author creates the false impression that Tillich regarded Jesus as a divine savior (Tillich didn’t believe in souls or life after death either).
• The author also fails to say that Tillich uses the phrase “as the Christ” to differentiate between the supernatural Christ of mythology and the real historical Jesus of Nazareth.
• The author fails again to say that Tillich created his “norm” in order to create a theology that would not crumble if, some time in the future, evidence emerged that the historical Jesus never existed. The Christ of what Tillich regards as mythology would still exist (as a myth) and would have the crucial characteristic Tillich bases his concept of God on.
• As the biggest failure of all, the author ignores Tillich’s careful explanation of why “Jesus as the Christ” is the norm. Tillich’s reason is that, according to the Council of Nicaea, the Christ was not half God and half man but “fully God and fully man.” The norm calls for a God that is fully God and fully man.

As the article now stands, it is mostly unintelligible gibberish, meaningless abstraction. Take this pair of sentences: “It is important to remember that, for Tillich, no formulation of the question [a question that the method of correlation answers] can contradict the theological answer. This is because the Christian message claims, a priori, that the logos ‘who became flesh’ is also the universal logos of the Greeks.” Don’t you see the non sequitur? How does either (a) identifying the Greek Logos with God or (b) having God become incarnated as a man make it impossible for a question to contradict a theological answer, assuming contradiction really is impossible? Taken literally, those are two unrelated assertions. The author is claiming, thoughtlessly and without comprehension (just paraphrasing what either McKelway or Tillich said), that if God is not or was not also the Logos, or else was not incarnated, a question COULD contradict the theological answer.

The author pretends to explain but clearly doesn’t understand what Tillich means in the two sentences, taken from another source, that he paraphrases. He is taking the words literally, whereas they have no literal meaning. What does it mean for a question to contradict its answer? How does God’s being the Logos prevent such contradiction? Taken literally, the words are unadulterated nonsense. Tillich is using his private symbolic language. To those who understand this symbolic language, the sentences do make sense. But I challenge the author (and his friends) to explain, by giving a nontheological example of a Q and its A, (1) what it means for a question to “contradict” an answer and (2) how, if “the Logos became flesh” (Jn. 1:14), does it become impossible for a question to contradict an answer. Not even the author can explain either (1) or (2), so what we have is nonsense, gibberish. (Only those who know what “question” and “answer” symbolize, what “contradict” means in this context, and why “Jesus as the Christ” must be “the norm,” can turn nonsense into sense.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul Tillich (talk • contribs) 02:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to be concise when I wrote the section, so some important aspects I only briefly touched on which would actually require much more explanation. The statement "no formulation of the question can contradict the answer" has to do with Tillich's view (explicitly stated somewhere in the intro to ST) that the theological answer can and must be reformulated in light of new formulations of the existential questions. This is his philosophical honesty at work, and he can claim to be constantly true the Christian message throughout this modification of the theological answer because, as he claims, the logos of Christianity is identical with the Greek logos. Why does this latter claim support the former? Because if the two logos are the same then any reformulation of the philosophical logos will, a priori, be compatible with the Christian logos (so long as it remains true to the norm). And they are the same in the first place because Christianity uses the Greek terminology from the get-go. The reasoning does involve this basic assumption, that on a deeper structural level the the question and answer involve the same principle or truth, one universal and the other concrete. Jonalexdeval (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)