Among the five alternatives, mystical ascent, process theology, and Tillich’s ground of all being all have a very distinct, neoplatonic content and flavor. I would even argue that Whitehead’s process philosophy is a modern version of Plotinus’ understanding of reality, and just as Plotinus identifies being itself (or more precisely, that which transcends both being and nothingness) with the One, so does Tillich identify being itself with God.
Great to see anyone talking real philosophy, but it may be more technical information than the general public can follow. I'd work on breaking it down into smaller and simpler concepts. And that will give you plenty to work on for producing more videos. Over time, the channel will grow.
Thx. It seems to me that Paul Tillich's approach takes away the fundamentalist certainty (both biblical and dogmatic) that many of us were nursed on for so long. This approach seems to require a profound, humble openness and an acceptance that we can never know/experience the fullness of the Ground of Being (Ultimate Existence/Reality); only our space, time inflection. This could easily lead one on a mystical path. I need to explore Tillich's thought more.
I've got to go with Barth, but that is because I rely on my personal experience and I can't easily walk away from that as a believer, however I do see that my anecdotal evidence doesn't provide security for others who are either unsure, or actively searching. So overall I think Tillich's systematic theology is the best of all choices....but still, ,for me? Barth seems to win.
Dr. B., Tillich's theology seems to be a exemplar of what critis of modern protestant theology would call a new docetism or gnosticism, in which the figure of the Saviour is not much more than a mediator of wisdom and salvation is in fact nothing else or more than enlightenment. I can imagine that he was confronted with such criticism in his active years. If so, how did he answer to them?
I'm not sure if he was ever specifically accused of being a docetist or a gnostic, but he was trying to lay a more solid grounding for Christianity than history allows since history is only based on probability & changes through time based on available evidence & its interpretation.
I am inclined to agree with both neoplatonic and existentialist theologies. It would make sense that religious truths would have many valid situation-relevant interpretations (because they are _logos_ to everyone at all times), but there would still be the ladder of the mystical ascent behind them---interpretations being a vehicle to elevate us from different kinds of swamps. Doctrine, scripture, myths, and rites are temporal truth-expressions of the eternal Truth that cannot be expressed with exact precision. It is possible to read these texts _(forma)_ in different relative ways but at the same time believe they have an absolute ineffable reality _(substantia)_ behind them. Like God has one essence but many uncreated energies (to use Palamite concepts). I do not say that _anything_ goes, but more than one might.
Yes, theoretically it's meant for all religions. Robert Neville took Tillich's main framework and did just that but he's retired now. I have some older episodes on Neville but I need to update them. Hopefully soon.
Where does atheism fit into the taxonomy of options at the start? Is it a variant of nihilism, or a variant of the "God as ground of being" view? Or is it not in the taxonomy?
Great question. For Tillich atheism probably wouldn't have been considered a theological option since it's not technically "theology" but it's definitely a wider religious option since there are religious traditions which are atheistic. A-theism is "no god" but not necessarily "no religion."
