Dean
9th February 2008, 15:26
While perusing the used books at Diversity Thrift, I found a book on ethics and personal liberty by a theologian. I opened it up, and found a Paul Tillich quote; the first sign that it had hope. I cracked to a random page, which happened to be talking about abortion, and I decided that this would decide whether or not I would buy it. The author decribed the conservative and catholic imposition of sanction against abortion as "unloving" and therefore 'ungodly' becaause it takes the right of decision making away from the woman.
Later, as me and my Fiancee were going to the Sex Worker's Art Show, a religious heckler used a loudspeaker to scream at the crowd. Through all of is rhetoric, one message was clear, the most oft repeated: "god hates...". Angrily, I replied "I never knew a god that hated," disgusted by their use of christian mythology and dogma.
This morning, I was still thinking of the victorian moralism of Christian dogma, and I was reminded of the book I found. This prompted me to look up Paul Tillich, whom I had seen quoted many times before, and who I assumed was a secular marxist who described huyman progress along terms of "love" (something I agree with wholeheartedly). So I looked up his name on Wikipedia, and I was very surprised to hear that he was a theologian, but more surprised that the rhetoric I have used to defend christianity here is reflected so succinctly in his writing and his "anti-supernaturalism" and "anti-theism".
This is something I have used to describe religious thought for a long time. However, I haven't found examples of philosophers who agree with this sentiment to the point of direct focus; Fromm and Feuerbach, while exressing similar sentiments, are much vaguer in their agreeance.
For those who aren't familiar with him, Paul Tillich is a humaninist marxist philosopher and theologian. Wikipedia provides a brief glimpse of his ideas in regard to the religion question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
In many additional places Tillich disavows belief in the God of theism (Wheat, 37-41). “There are no valid arguments for the ‘existence’ of God” (Tillich, 1952, p. 181). Also: “If ‘existence’ refers to something which can be found within the whole of reality, no divine being exists” (Tillich, 1957b, p. 47). Again: “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). And again: “Atheism is a correct response to the ‘objectively’ existing God of literalistic thought” (Tillich, 1966b, p. 65). Once more: “The half-blasphemous and mythological concept of the ‘existence of God’ has arisen. And so have the abortive attempts to prove the existence of this ‘object.’ To such a concept and to such attempts atheism is the right religious and theological reply” (Tillich, 1959, p. 25). But, if one assumes that attempts to prove God’s existence have indeed been “abortive,” might not faith be adequate to establish God’s existence? Not according to Tillich: “Nothing is more undignified than to make faith do duty for evidence which is lacking” (Tillich, 1963a, p. 131).
I am not a religious person, but I do think it is clear that I respect religion and condemn it much less than others here. My question for the majority here is, would you still oppose religion as "antithetical" to marxism if it were expressed in anti-supernaturalist terms? Do you view such religious sentiment differently?
To those who are religious here (regardless of the form), what do you think of such ideas? Do you feel that your own religious understanding reflects or runs counter to the ideas postulated by Tillich? If you disagree with him, why?
Later, as me and my Fiancee were going to the Sex Worker's Art Show, a religious heckler used a loudspeaker to scream at the crowd. Through all of is rhetoric, one message was clear, the most oft repeated: "god hates...". Angrily, I replied "I never knew a god that hated," disgusted by their use of christian mythology and dogma.
This morning, I was still thinking of the victorian moralism of Christian dogma, and I was reminded of the book I found. This prompted me to look up Paul Tillich, whom I had seen quoted many times before, and who I assumed was a secular marxist who described huyman progress along terms of "love" (something I agree with wholeheartedly). So I looked up his name on Wikipedia, and I was very surprised to hear that he was a theologian, but more surprised that the rhetoric I have used to defend christianity here is reflected so succinctly in his writing and his "anti-supernaturalism" and "anti-theism".
This is something I have used to describe religious thought for a long time. However, I haven't found examples of philosophers who agree with this sentiment to the point of direct focus; Fromm and Feuerbach, while exressing similar sentiments, are much vaguer in their agreeance.
For those who aren't familiar with him, Paul Tillich is a humaninist marxist philosopher and theologian. Wikipedia provides a brief glimpse of his ideas in regard to the religion question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
In many additional places Tillich disavows belief in the God of theism (Wheat, 37-41). “There are no valid arguments for the ‘existence’ of God” (Tillich, 1952, p. 181). Also: “If ‘existence’ refers to something which can be found within the whole of reality, no divine being exists” (Tillich, 1957b, p. 47). Again: “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). And again: “Atheism is a correct response to the ‘objectively’ existing God of literalistic thought” (Tillich, 1966b, p. 65). Once more: “The half-blasphemous and mythological concept of the ‘existence of God’ has arisen. And so have the abortive attempts to prove the existence of this ‘object.’ To such a concept and to such attempts atheism is the right religious and theological reply” (Tillich, 1959, p. 25). But, if one assumes that attempts to prove God’s existence have indeed been “abortive,” might not faith be adequate to establish God’s existence? Not according to Tillich: “Nothing is more undignified than to make faith do duty for evidence which is lacking” (Tillich, 1963a, p. 131).
I am not a religious person, but I do think it is clear that I respect religion and condemn it much less than others here. My question for the majority here is, would you still oppose religion as "antithetical" to marxism if it were expressed in anti-supernaturalist terms? Do you view such religious sentiment differently?
To those who are religious here (regardless of the form), what do you think of such ideas? Do you feel that your own religious understanding reflects or runs counter to the ideas postulated by Tillich? If you disagree with him, why?