Paul Tillich

Background

• Born 1886 in Germany• Took an existentialist approach to Christian

theology.• Emigrated to the USA to escape serious Nazi

conflict in his home.• Widely regarded as one of the most important

theological influences in the 20th century.

Background: Pre-war

• Attended Friedrich Wilhelm Gymnasium, an advanced high school for preliminary university education.

• During these years studied the works of Fichte and Kant.

• In 1911 he received a doctoral degree in philosophy.• Called up to serve as a military chaplain in WW1.• In 1914 married Margarethe Wever.• Later that very year she had an affair with one of his

friends and left him.

Background: Post-war

• Went to University of Berlin from 1919 to 1924.• Married again to Hannah Wermer Gottschow in 1924• In 1925 Tillich began to formulate his systematic

theological ideas.• In 1929, he became a professor of philosophy at the

University of Frankfurt• His numerous public lectures brought forth

contradictory views with the growing Nazi movement. • As Hitler came to power, he was dismissed from his

role as professor.

Background: American Years

• Forced to migrate to the United States due to this conflict.• Became a professor in a university in New York.• This allowed him to become acquainted with other

American philosophers.• In 1951 he completed the first volume of the Systematic

Theology• Finished the second and third volumes of Systematic

Theology in 1957 and 1963.• He remained at the University of Chicago until his death

on October 22, 1965.

Dynamics of Faith (1957)• This book describes faith as an act of personality and examines how faith participates in the

dynamics of the personality. The book also looks at the conflict between faith and doubt. Throughout the book, Tillich defines and explains faith as an ultimate concern.

• According to Tillich, faith is an act of total personality. Faith is the freedom to choose to believe in something.

• Faith is not simply the will to believe, says Tillich. It is a cognitive affirmation of the transcendent nature of ultimate reality. This is achieved by an act of acceptance and surrender.

• Religious faith brings an awareness of the sacred. Tillich says that faith is certain, as it is an experience of the sacred, but that it is also uncertain, as it brings finite (humans) beings into relation with an infinite reality (God). Uncertainty in faith cannot be avoided, and must be accepted.

• Tillich argues that doubt is included in every act of faith.• According to Tillich, faith is not a belief that something has a certain degree of probability.

Faith is not a type of theoretical knowledge that is based on probability. Tillich says that many historical conflicts have resulted from the misunderstanding of faith as a type of knowledge supported by religious authority.

• The language of faith, says Tillich, is symbolic language used to describe ultimate reality. For example, the word “God” is a symbol for ultimate reality. Therefore, to argue about whether God exists or does not exist is meaningless.

Cont……..• Tillich argues that myths are symbols of faith, which tell stories to portray

situations of ultimate concern. Myths may be ‘broken’ or ‘unbroken.’ Unbroken myths are myths which are accepted as literal statements of reality. Broken myths are myths which are interpreted as myths, as symbolic statements of reality.

• In discussing the truth of faith, Tillich examines the relation between faith and reason. Faith is not in conflict with reason. Tillich says that reason is a precondition for faith, and that faith is an act in which reason ecstatically transcends itself. Reason fulfils itself when it brings an the presence of ultimate reality.

• Tillich believes that the truth of faith does not conflict with scientific truth, unless faith claims to express scientific truth, or unless science expresses faith in a particular model of reality. The truth of faith is also independent of historical truth, and historical truth is independent of the truth of faith.

• Tillich says that the truth of faith can neither be affirmed nor denied by scientific, historical, or philosophical truth. Faith is true insofar as it adequately expresses a concern with ultimate reality.

Criticisms• Tillich says that there can be no faith without separation from ultimate reality. But

it can be argued, that if we have faith in ultimate reality, we are no longer separated from it. If we have faith in God, then we are no longer separated from God.

• Tillich says that faith can have both subjective and objective truth. But it can be argued that faith is subjective and not objective as an act of concern, because it would not be necessary if there were objective certainty.

• In determining the truth of faith, it is also necessary to distinguish between the act of faith, and the content of faith. According to Tillich, it is possible to have true faith, but to have false beliefs. It is also possible to have true beliefs, but false faith. This may lead to an argument about what is true or false faith.

• Also the definition of the Title is ambiguous, and needs further explanation. If faith is an ultimate concern, with what is it ultimately concerned? To be concerned, we must have a concern with something. Tillich says that the content of faith does not matter for the definition of faith. But, to resolve this ambiguity, Tillich’s definition of faith may be interpreted to mean that faith is a concern with ultimate reality.

Tillich’s (super cool) Quotes• Language... has created the word 'loneliness' to express the pain of being alone. A

nd it has created the word 'solitude' to express the glory of being alone.

• Loneliness expresses the pain of being alone and solitude expresses the glory of being alone

• Our language has wisely sensed the two sides of being alone. It has created the word loneliness to express the pain of being alone. And it has created the word solitude to express the glory of being alone.

• Man's ultimate concern must be expressed symbolically, because symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate.

• Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is one element of faith

Paul’s religious language • Paul Tillich believed that religious language was symbolic rather than literal (and

therefore it could not be subjected to verification principles).• Therefore religious language taps into the poetic, the mythical , the imaginative

side of human nature to convey fundamental truths.• In Tillich’s view, there is no other way to get to these truths. Perhaps we could

think of how art functions. On the one hand, it ‘creates symbols for a level of reality which cannot be reached in any other way’ and at the same time it opens up new sensitivities and powers of appreciation in ourselves.

• On the other hand, according to Tillich, language used in a literal way conveys a false impression of God. For example, God is not a being (whose existence would then be open to question) so much as the ground of Being.

• In Tillich’s view, the only literal, no symbolic way of referring to God is to say that God is ‘Being itself’

When applied to Judeo-Christian theism, Tillich’s ideas:• coincide with Thomistic analogy theory in asserting the inadequacy of

language: analogies conceal more than they reveal; symbolic expressions have their meaning ‘negated by that to which they point’.

• help, according to Hick, guard against the idolatry of thinking of God as though a greatly magnified human being (anthropomorphism).

• can be confusing, as Tillich failed to spell exactly how religious symbolic expression participates in or connects with the ultimate reality to it points.

• overemphasises, in Hick’s view, the aesthetic aspect in religious language at the expense of other valid modes of communication.

• can create difficulty of interpretation – how do we know how valid are the insights conveyed about the ultimate through symbols?

Signs

• Tillich made a distinction between signs and symbols

• He argued that signs are chosen arbitrarily to stand for something else

• And as long as we all agree on the meaning of the sign, it doesn’t matter what form the sign takes.

Symbols

• A symbol, on the other hand, according to Tillich ‘participates in’ the object represented.

• Tillich uses the example of a national flag, which evokes feelings of loyalty and patriotism at the same time as it symbolises the country.

Religious Ideas

• Tillich claimed that all religious ideas and language were symbolic, pointing beyond themselves to ‘being-itself’.

• Which was how he understood the nature of God.

Does God exist?

• Paul Tillich also raised the same issue of whether ‘does God exist?’ is a real question, but he argued this from a theist position.

• According to Tillich, ‘existence’ is something which relates to things that are created.

• Therefore, if people say ‘God exists’, they imply that God is on the same level as a finite, created object in the world.

…Cont.

• In Tillich’s understanding, God is not a ‘thing’. If an inventory could be made of all the ‘things’ in the universe, God would not be on that list – but that does not mean God doesn’t exist.

• Tillich argued that God is not a being but is being-itself, the ground of all existence and the reason why everything has come into existence and remains in existence.

…Cont.

• To emphasise his point, when Tillich wrote of God, he used the term ‘Being-itself’ instead of ‘God’. So for Tillich, the question ‘Does God exist?’ means as much as asking ‘Does existence exist’.