Kaufmann: Faith of a Heretic

[Metacrock]

The only work of Tillich's that I can definitely assume that Kaufmann read was Dynamics of Faith. I am not sure of the others.

that's not really enough.

[mdsimpson92]

that's not really enough.

Yeah, I know. I think Kaufmann may have mistaken Tillich as some sort of crypto-atheist trying to preserve Lutheranism culturally. Because of that I think he misses the mark.

[Metacrock]

that's not really enough.

Yeah, I know. I think Kaufmann may have mistaken Tillich as some sort of crypto-atheist trying to preserve Lutheranism culturally. Because of that I think he misses the mark.

a lot of people have said that. I always think it comes from nothing much of his work. He explicitly denied that several times. He didn't just deny it he expalined why it doesn't follow from the things he says.

[mdsimpson92]

a lot of people have said that. I always think it comes from nothing much of his work. He explicitly denied that several times. He didn't just deny it he expalined why it doesn't follow from the things he says.

Well, there is that part in Courage to Be where he says, "god does not exist" I know many people would take that the wrong way. Though I don't think Kaufmann would have mistook that statement. That being said I remember Martin Buber also had a criticism of Tillich's concept of God.

If you want I could try and find it.

[Metacrock]

a lot of people have said that. I always think it comes from nothing much of his work. He explicitly denied that several times. He didn't just deny it he expalined why it doesn't follow from the things he says.

Well, there is that part in Courage to Be where he says, "god does not exist" I know many people would take that the wrong way. Though I don't think Kaufmann would have mistook that statement. That being said I remember Martin Buber also had a criticism of Tillich's concept of God.

If you want I could try and find it.

I know Kaufmann would be smart enough to understand the distinction. No he might think it's BS. I have former professors at Perkins who I respect as great thinkers who think that. I'm not down on Kaufmann if he thinks that. I guess my talk about not respecting is more disillusionment because I expected more of tussle from him.

[moksha]

I find Kaufmann is a real asshole when it comes to his stupid attacks on theology. He's just an amateur and he's not even willing to study theology on its own terms. the things he's saying are no better than the average message board atheist.


103 of the book he starts by defining theology from Websters and then he falls back on Gibbon. Gibbon was a professional God hater. he was they liar who started the story that Eusebius said it's ok to lie for the faith. When you study the origin of that quote you find Gibbon made it up and attributed it to Eusebus with no backing. This is the jerk that Kaufmann takes as the big authroity on what theology is.

Of cousre he's avoiding using the real source. any definitions in theology should be takne from the Westminster dictionary. that's like discussing law and not consulting Blacks Law Dictionary. Ne never even says anything about faith seeking understanding or participation in a tradition. Those are the two major definitions.

I wish I could copy from the source but they wont let you. make it a lot easier to quote. more tomorrow.

What does it mean to "study theology on its own terms"?

Kaufmann actually doesn't accept the definition of theology from Websters nor does he fall back on Gibbon. He dismisses both of them.

[Metacrock]

I find Kaufmann is a real asshole when it comes to his stupid attacks on theology. He's just an amateur and he's not even willing to study theology on its own terms. the things he's saying are no better than the average message board atheist.


103 of the book he starts by defining theology from Websters and then he falls back on Gibbon. Gibbon was a professional God hater. he was they liar who started the story that Eusebius said it's ok to lie for the faith. When you study the origin of that quote you find Gibbon made it up and attributed it to Eusebus with no backing. This is the jerk that Kaufmann takes as the big authroity on what theology is.

Of cousre he's avoiding using the real source. any definitions in theology should be takne from the Westminster dictionary. that's like discussing law and not consulting Blacks Law Dictionary. Ne never even says anything about faith seeking understanding or participation in a tradition. Those are the two major definitions.

I wish I could copy from the source but they wont let you. make it a lot easier to quote. more tomorrow.

What does it mean to "study theology on its own terms"?

Kaufmann actually doesn't accept the definition of theology from Websters nor does he fall back on Gibbon. He dismisses both of them.

really? can you quote the bit where he does that?

I have to admit I probably am making a knee jerk reaction because of the way the atheists on CARM have treated Tillich. But then I don't think of Kaufmann as an atheist on carm> he never really posted there.

O well I"m probalby an asshole too you know.

[Metacrock]

That's a reductionist version of mystical experience. When I speak of it I mean the full blown thing as in the work of W.T. Stace; an experience beyond words that can't be relayed accurately in words, that opens one's understanding preferentially (but not verbally or intellectually) to reality beyond our understanding, which is also transformational for the those who experience it, that is life changing in a positive sense.

Most people don't know the empirical seance backing it. Atheists will do anything to deny including lie which they have done over and over again. It has a vast body of scientific work providing it's validity.

[Metacrock]

That's a reductionist version of mystical experience. When I speak of it I mean the full blown thing as in the work of W.T. Stace; an experience beyond words that can't be relayed accurately in words, that opens one's understanding preferentially (but not verbally or intellectually) to reality beyond our understanding, which is also transformational for the those who experience it, that is life changing in a positive sense.

Most people don't know the empirical seance backing it. Atheists will do anything to deny including lie which they have done over and over again. It has a vast body of scientific work providing it's validity.

Well I appreciate your perspective, but I don't view it as reductionist, but something that can be communicated to others. In my view if it can't be communicated, what use is it? Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me what you're expressing is some kind of gnostic spirituality; which is confined to those who are initiated. I happen to believe that there are a lot of people who can't think that deeply but also have transformational experiences like that and can communicate them. That's why I'm a little wary of gnostic or esoteric types of spirituality, because it seems to be rather elitist and I don't believe God is that way. Correct me if I'm wrong and don't understand. I don't understand a lot of things, so there's nothing new there.

PS, I have a lot of experience debating and trying to be rational with atheists who simply won't be due to their a priori metaphysical assumptions, so I definitely know what you mean. Some guy on YouTube just today is trying to tell me all the assumptions WL Craig makes in his debates (which may be so), while of course Sam Harris makes none.

one of the things that makes mystical experience mystical is that it can't be communicated. Mystical experience is an empirical thing. it's experienced. the nature of the experiences that people actual have that make it mystical. That's the whole point of Stace's work, he read the mystics and codified what they talked about in terms of their experiences.

[moksha]

What does it mean to "study theology on its own terms"?

Kaufmann actually doesn't accept the definition of theology from Websters nor does he fall back on Gibbon. He dismisses both of them.

really? can you quote the bit where he does that?

Opps forgot about this.
From Page 103 of Kaufmann: Faith of a Heretic

What is theology? Certainly not what Webster's New International
Dictionary says it is when giving one of its meanings as
the "critical, historical, and psychological study of religion." This
definition is introduced with the words, "More loosely"; but any
definition which would make Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire, Nietzsche's Antichrist, and Freud's Future of an
Illusion exercises in theology is not only loose but absurd.
The same dictionary, which is known as "the supreme authority,"
defines a theologian as "a person well versed in theology" or a
"writer on theology." This would not only turn Gibbon, Freud, and
Nietzsche into theologians; any critic of theology, being a "writer
on theology," would himself be a theologian.
This usage has no basis in the etymology of the word nor in
judiciously spoken English...