8/13/2019 Till Ich

1/3

Tillich - Two Types of Philosophy of Religion

1. Religion as a Dimension of Man's Spiritual Life

The theologian's claim: religion is not a creation of the human spirit but a gift of the divine Spirit (4). The

scientist's claim: religion is characteristic for a special stage of human development, but it has no place

today. Both define religion as man's relation to divine beings, but this bit of common ground makes any

understanding of religion impossible. Religion is an aspect of the human spirit (5). Religion is not a

special function of man's spiritual life, but it is the dimension of depthin all of its functions. Some say

that religion has a moral function, a cognitive function, an aesthetic function, that it is a feeling, but it is

none of these: "religion suddenly realizes that it does not need such a place, that it does not need to seek

for a home. It is at home everywhere, namely, in the depth of all functions of man's spiritual life" (7).

Religious aspect points to that which is ultimate. Religion opens up the depth of man's spiritual life

which is usually covered by the dust of our daily life and the noise of our secular work.

2. Two Types of Philosophy of Religion

Two ways of approaching God: the way of overcoming estrangement and the way of meeting a stranger.

These correspond to the ontological and cosmological proofs. Tillich's three claims: 1) the

ontological method is basic for every philosophy of religion, 2) the cosmological method without the

ontological as its basis leads to a destructive cleavage between philosophy and religion, 3) on the basis of

the ontological approach and with a dependent use of the cosmological way, philosophy of religion

contributes to the reconciliation between religion and secular culture (11).

a. The World Historical Problem: Task of philosophy of religion to protect the absolutes of both, Deus

and esse.

b. The Augustinian Solution: Deus and esse coincide in the nature of truth. Veritas is presupposed in

every philosophical argument; and veritas is God (12). Cannot deny truth because you could only do so in

the name of truth. God is the presupposition of the question of God: this is the ontological solution f the

problem of the philosophy of religion. God can never be reached if he is the object of a question, and not

its basis (13). Psychologically, doubt is possible; but logically, the Absolute is affirmed by the very act of

doubt, because it is implied in every statement about the relation between subject and predicate (13).

These principles are not created functions of our mind, but the presence of truth itself (and therefore of

8/13/2019 Till Ich

2/3

God) in our mind. The Thomistic method of knowledge through sense perception and abstraction may be

useful for scientific purposes, but it never can reach the Absolute. It builds the way of scientia but

notsapientia(wisdom) (14).The ontological argument is the rational description of the

relation of our mind to Being as such (15). The fact that people turn away from this thought is based

on individual defects but not on the essential structure of the mind.Anselm, unfortunately, on the basis

of his epistemological realism, transformed the primum esseinto anens realissimum, the principle

into a universal being. Gaunilo, Thomas and Kant were right in denying the logical transition from the

necessity of Being itself to a highest being.

c. The Thomistic Dissolution: Thomas says the rational way to God is not immediate but mediated (16).

He says there are two ways in which something is known:by itself and by us. In these words, Aquinas

cuts the nerve of the ontological approach. Man is excluded from the primum esse and the prima veritas

(17). This leads to an emphasis on authority, and to viewing the Bible as a collection of true propositions,

instead of being a guide book to contemplation as in Bonaventura (17). Faith here does not imply an

immediate contact with its object. "The human intellect cannot reach by natural virtue the divine

substance, because, according to the way of the present life the cognition of our intellect starts with the

senses" (18). God's existence is thus brought down to the level of that of a stone. Occam's God, a res

singularissima, which cannot be approached at all except through an unnoticeable habit of grace in the

unconscious which is supposed to move the will towards subjection to authority, is the final outcome of

the Thomistic dissolutionof the Augustinian solution (19).

d. Conflicts and Mixtures of the Two Types in the Modern Philosophy of Religion: when we go from

Augustine to Descartes, we get the removal of the mystical element of Augustine's idea of ultimate

evidence by Descartes' concept of rationality (20). German idealism = ontological.

Empirical/Experimental philosophy of religion = cosmological (21).

e. The Ontological Awareness of the Unconditional: The Deus est esse is the basis of all philosophy of

religion (22). Man is immediately aware of something unconditional which is the prius of the

separation and interaction of subject and object, theoretically as well as practically. Thomas

injured the understanding of religion when he dissolved the substantial unity of the psychological

functions and attributed to the will in isolation what the intellect alone is not able to perform

(23).Schleiermachersimilarly injured religion in combatting the cosmological approach when he cut

"feeling" (as the religious function) off from will and intellect, thus excluding religion from the totality of

8/13/2019 Till Ich

3/3

personal existence and delivering it to emotional subjectivity (24). The unconditional makes an

unconditional demand upon those who are aware of something unconditional, and which cannot be

interpreted as the principle of a rational deduction (24). The unconditional, as opposed to

theUnconditioned(God), is an awareness of God. But the unconditional and the Unconditioned must

be in relation to prevent the Unconditioned from disappearing. The ontological approach transcends the

discussion between nominalism and realism, if it rejects the concept of the ens realissimum, as it must do.

f. The Cosmological Awareness of the Unconditioned: The Unconditioned of which we have an

immediate awareness, without inference, can be recognized in the cultural and natural

universe(26). In concepts like contingency, insecurity, transitoriness, and their psychological correlates

anxiety, care, meaninglessness, a new cosmological approach has developed, a new negative way of

recognizing the unconditional element in man and his world (27) -> theology of culture. The

presupposition of this many-sided attempt is that in every cultural creation - a picture, a system, a law, a

political movement (however secular it may appear) - an ultimate concern is expressed, and that it is

possible to recognize the unconscious theological character of it (27).

g. Ontological Certainty and the Risk of Faith: The Unconditioned has not the character of faith but of

self-evidence (27). The risk offaithis based on the fact that the unconditional element can become a

matter of ultimate concern only if it appears in a concrete embodiment (28). The risk of faith is an

existential risk, a risk in which the meaning and fulfillment of our lives is at stake, and not a theoretical

judgment which may be refuted sooner or later. But it is based on a foundation which is not a risk: the

awareness of the unconditional element in ourselves and our world. The ontological approach is able to

overcome as far as it is possible by mere thought the fateful gap between religion and culture, thus

reconciling concerns which are not strange to each other but have been estranged from each other (29).