5 ms·

It does bring that to mind, especially given the era he came out of. Likely, however, what he is trying to get at is the distinction between God/not God: existe

It does bring that to mind, especially given the era he came out of. Likely, however, what he is trying to get at is the distinction between God/not God: existence is something a thing which is not God — a neutrino, a squirrel, a rock — is given, which makes speaking of God as having existence in the same way as those things a mistake, as if the highest thing is just one of those many things which could be enumerated that way. This helps maintain the distinction Tillich is likely aiming at, which is to avoid speaking of God as part of the universe, or in some panentheistic way.

taion 3y ago
And in that sense Tillich isn't that far from, say, Aquinas, who is consistent about asserting that existence is not a "real" predicate and that God's existence is outside of the world and outside of space and time. You don't even need to squint that hard to see a commonality between Tillich's notion of discussing God symbolically and Aquinas's notion of doing so analogically, not to mention the contrast between finite humans and an infinite God who is beyond understanding. And not to mention that apophaticism – the idea that positive knowledge about God is impossible – has been a feature of Christian theology since the beginning. So much of this can be taken in ways that not only aren't outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, but also align with more sophisticated Christian philosophical understandings of God. That much, of course, is not why Tillich is controversial!
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  So… God is mathematics?
  - knightoffaith 3y ago
    Don't know where you got that from.
    - tivert 3y ago
      I'm guessing a sloppy equivalence due to the idea of "existence is outside of the world and outside of space and time" showing up in descriptions (e.g. "a platonist might assert that the number pi exists outside of space and time" from https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/ https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/).
      - jiggawatts 3y ago
        Yes! To be more specific: if the Universe (existence itself) can be described by mathematics, and mathematics is timeless (beyond mere physical existence), then essentially the physical Universe is inevitable and in some sense "created by" mathematics. In this view of creation, mathematics plays the role of God. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City
rjknight 3y ago
It's also worth bearing in mind that much theology is an attempt to explain what the experience of God is like. The experience of God is not (for Tillich, nor perhaps for very many moderns) about finding a literal place and time in which God-the-being can be directly observed. To seek God and expect to find a being who exists in the same manner as a tree or a building is to set oneself up for failure. When Tillich says "The courage to be is rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doubt" he is describing the psychological process the seeker undergoes. In his case, he identifies God with the open, reflective cast of mind in which one engages with the unknowable, ineffable, combinatorally-explosive possibilities that are found at the horizons of our understanding. The "state of being grasped by an ultimate concern" is one in which we are trying - and necessarily failing - to see beyond the horizon. And yet, something sustains us in the effort, which is faith in God. Doubtless this really is a very different kind of faith than other self-described Christians might have, whose faith might be rooted in a different mode of being and engagement with the world. And, to be clear, Tillich's description is very much "what it's like" to have his variety of faith, and not a metaphysical claim about the workings of the universe. A different Christian might hold much stronger claims about God's precise nature and existence, but for Tillich those beliefs were unsustainable.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  > To seek God and expect to find a being who exists in the same manner as a tree or a building is to set oneself up for failure. But isn’t that the whole point of Christianity, that Jesus was God in human flesh and actually existed like you or I exist while also being fully God?
  - smeej 3y ago
    Existed like you or I exist, yes, but existed merely as you or I exist, or merely as a tree or building exists, no.
scop 3y ago
I think this is on point, but does point to the limits/faults in his work. I recall being very energized by Tillich in my youth and at the very beginnings of my religious exploration, but was very surprised that the sort of "ambiguity" he was trying to parse was much more well laid out in classical theologians (Aquinas, etc), i.e. "to define God, the limitless being, is to inherently apply limit" which is why theologians have traditionally pursued God via "what He is Not" as we can certainly say that God is not limited, time bound, etc. Tillich's "ambiguity" was very approachable in my youth, but today I find it extremely dangerous from a moral and philosophical perspective. There is truth in what is said, but unless you have the context in which it is said you can quickly spin it to your heart's delight. My primary takeaway as a youth was "this is great and very theological/intellectually stimulating while not morally demanding of me whatsoever, hooray!" which is why, as a stubborn young adult, certainly found it attractive. FWIW, if anybody wants a great challenge that seeks to bridge classical theology with modern/personalist/subjective thought, you should read Man and Woman He Created Them by John Paul II. It is as rewarding as it is dense and gave me the bridge between "old" and "new" philosophy/theology that I find lacking in many moderns.
- smeej 3y ago
  Strong second for Man and Woman He Created Them. If you can get through it without coming to a deeper understanding of yourself (whether in agreement with its ideas or in opposition to them), you'll be the first person I've met who has.
- rhelz 3y ago
  > you can quickly spin it… It’s really hard for me to see how any theology—or any text—could be any less ambiguous than any other. E.g. quantum mechanics is arguably the least ambiguous theory ever devised, because it gives results of the most specific agreement with experiment. But nevertheless has an ever-increasing number of interpretations, none of which can be ruled out—to all appearances hopelessly ambiguous to what it actually means. When it comes decisions you have to make, either individually or as a society, even the most verbose and specific moral codes suddenly seem to be ambiguous. Some examples: 1. Are we morally obliged to either support or oppose Obamacare? 2. Is a 50% tax rate moral or immoral? What is the exact tax rate which is “most moral”? 3. Is it Moral to support a president who boinked an intern? Or a president who payed hush money to hookers? 4. Should it be illegal to smoke? Or sell fruit-flavored vapes? 5. How old should somebody be before they are allowed to (fill in the blank here…vote, have sex, drive a car, drink, drop out of school?) We certainly look to our cultural polestars—-religion, tradition, precident—to help us out with these sorts of questions, but by no means does any of them give us any definitive answers.
cout 3y ago
It is a peculiar thing to say about someone who refers to oneself as "I am".
- flenserboy 3y ago
  It kind of is — except the name given to Moses is closer to "I Am Who I Am", which is consonant with the rest of the OT/NT, where God is known by what he does & what he says (revealing the contours of his character) instead of through examination, deduction, or some sort of experience of the divine.

taion 3y ago

And in that sense Tillich isn't that far from, say, Aquinas, who is consistent about asserting that existence is not a "real" predicate and that God's existence is outside of the world and outside of space and time. You don't even need to squint that hard to see a commonality between Tillich's notion of discussing God symbolically and Aquinas's notion of doing so analogically, not to mention the contrast between finite humans and an infinite God who is beyond understanding. And not to mention that apophaticism – the idea that positive knowledge about God is impossible – has been a feature of Christian theology since the beginning. So much of this can be taken in ways that not only aren't outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, but also align with more sophisticated Christian philosophical understandings of God. That much, of course, is not why Tillich is controversial!

jiggawatts 3y ago
So… God is mathematics?
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  Don't know where you got that from.
  - tivert 3y ago
    I'm guessing a sloppy equivalence due to the idea of "existence is outside of the world and outside of space and time" showing up in descriptions (e.g. "a platonist might assert that the number pi exists outside of space and time" from https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/ https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/).
    - jiggawatts 3y ago
      Yes! To be more specific: if the Universe (existence itself) can be described by mathematics, and mathematics is timeless (beyond mere physical existence), then essentially the physical Universe is inevitable and in some sense "created by" mathematics. In this view of creation, mathematics plays the role of God. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City

rjknight 3y ago

It's also worth bearing in mind that much theology is an attempt to explain what the experience of God is like. The experience of God is not (for Tillich, nor perhaps for very many moderns) about finding a literal place and time in which God-the-being can be directly observed. To seek God and expect to find a being who exists in the same manner as a tree or a building is to set oneself up for failure. When Tillich says "The courage to be is rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doubt" he is describing the psychological process the seeker undergoes. In his case, he identifies God with the open, reflective cast of mind in which one engages with the unknowable, ineffable, combinatorally-explosive possibilities that are found at the horizons of our understanding. The "state of being grasped by an ultimate concern" is one in which we are trying - and necessarily failing - to see beyond the horizon. And yet, something sustains us in the effort, which is faith in God. Doubtless this really is a very different kind of faith than other self-described Christians might have, whose faith might be rooted in a different mode of being and engagement with the world. And, to be clear, Tillich's description is very much "what it's like" to have his variety of faith, and not a metaphysical claim about the workings of the universe. A different Christian might hold much stronger claims about God's precise nature and existence, but for Tillich those beliefs were unsustainable.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> To seek God and expect to find a being who exists in the same manner as a tree or a building is to set oneself up for failure. But isn’t that the whole point of Christianity, that Jesus was God in human flesh and actually existed like you or I exist while also being fully God?
- smeej 3y ago
  Existed like you or I exist, yes, but existed merely as you or I exist, or merely as a tree or building exists, no.

scop 3y ago

I think this is on point, but does point to the limits/faults in his work. I recall being very energized by Tillich in my youth and at the very beginnings of my religious exploration, but was very surprised that the sort of "ambiguity" he was trying to parse was much more well laid out in classical theologians (Aquinas, etc), i.e. "to define God, the limitless being, is to inherently apply limit" which is why theologians have traditionally pursued God via "what He is Not" as we can certainly say that God is not limited, time bound, etc. Tillich's "ambiguity" was very approachable in my youth, but today I find it extremely dangerous from a moral and philosophical perspective. There is truth in what is said, but unless you have the context in which it is said you can quickly spin it to your heart's delight. My primary takeaway as a youth was "this is great and very theological/intellectually stimulating while not morally demanding of me whatsoever, hooray!" which is why, as a stubborn young adult, certainly found it attractive. FWIW, if anybody wants a great challenge that seeks to bridge classical theology with modern/personalist/subjective thought, you should read Man and Woman He Created Them by John Paul II. It is as rewarding as it is dense and gave me the bridge between "old" and "new" philosophy/theology that I find lacking in many moderns.

smeej 3y ago
Strong second for Man and Woman He Created Them. If you can get through it without coming to a deeper understanding of yourself (whether in agreement with its ideas or in opposition to them), you'll be the first person I've met who has.
rhelz 3y ago
> you can quickly spin it… It’s really hard for me to see how any theology—or any text—could be any less ambiguous than any other. E.g. quantum mechanics is arguably the least ambiguous theory ever devised, because it gives results of the most specific agreement with experiment. But nevertheless has an ever-increasing number of interpretations, none of which can be ruled out—to all appearances hopelessly ambiguous to what it actually means. When it comes decisions you have to make, either individually or as a society, even the most verbose and specific moral codes suddenly seem to be ambiguous. Some examples: 1. Are we morally obliged to either support or oppose Obamacare? 2. Is a 50% tax rate moral or immoral? What is the exact tax rate which is “most moral”? 3. Is it Moral to support a president who boinked an intern? Or a president who payed hush money to hookers? 4. Should it be illegal to smoke? Or sell fruit-flavored vapes? 5. How old should somebody be before they are allowed to (fill in the blank here…vote, have sex, drive a car, drink, drop out of school?) We certainly look to our cultural polestars—-religion, tradition, precident—to help us out with these sorts of questions, but by no means does any of them give us any definitive answers.

cout 3y ago

It is a peculiar thing to say about someone who refers to oneself as "I am".

flenserboy 3y ago
It kind of is — except the name given to Moses is closer to "I Am Who I Am", which is consonant with the rest of the OT/NT, where God is known by what he does & what he says (revealing the contours of his character) instead of through examination, deduction, or some sort of experience of the divine.