Kaufmann: Faith of a Heretic

[mdsimpson92]

I work I am wondering if I should read. Here is a short article giving a general summary. Please comment on it.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kaufmann.htm

[mdsimpson92]

Here is the whole book that came later.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729241/Faith-of-a-Heretic

[mdsimpson92]

Having finally read through 85% of the work (the text started blanking out on the last 60 pages or so). . . . .Holy crud. That was the best critique of religion (christianity in particular) that I have ever read. It was polite, articulate, generally respectful (he does have a bit of an axe to grind against christianity and protestantism in general and he gives a lot more credit to Judaism) well versed in theology and philosophy. Hell, he even singles out both Tillich and Shweitzer. I think his criticism on theology may be painting with a large brush, but again, dang. . . . .

so. . . . . yeah, this guy is worth reading regardless of religion or scepticism.

[fleetmouse]

I've been wanting to read this book for years... it's out of print, and the used copies are too expensive. Kaufmann was the first great translator and reappraiser of Nietzsche. Looks like he needs his own Kaufmann, so to speak, to rescue his own work and get it back in print.

What are you reading it on? I downloaded that link and my iPad is grunting like a pig trying to render the pages. Have to try on the desktop computer.

edit: ah, on a hunch I re-saved it as a PDF on my desktop and now it's like 80 mb. It was in some super compressed format. Now at least all the pages render properly without lagging and stuttering. I can upload it later if you want.

[mdsimpson92]

Feel free, this book has me rereading the old testament. This is what I wanted out of a critique. Not some Dawkin BS, this is the kind of sceptic I can learn from and take note.

EDIT: by the way I did finally finish it. I am so glad I have a four day weekend.

[Metacrock]

I work I am wondering if I should read. Here is a short article giving a general summary. Please comment on it.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kaufmann.htm

I used to like him. He was the best on Neitzsche.

[Metacrock]

A lot of things happened to me that winter, spring, and summer; and when the war broke out I had what, but for its contents, few would hesitate to call a mystical experience. In the most intense despair I suddenly saw that I had deceived myself for years: I had believed. At last the God of tradition joined the Holy Ghost and Christ.

I'm one of the few. it's not a mystical experience. When atheists have them they don't have an experience where they think out in word "there is no God." that is not a mystical experience.

when you examine the essence mystical experiences by atheist they are the same as others that don't lead to atheism. What they call an abyss of nothing is what the other guy is calling "God." The two meet in the same religious view point in Vedanta. The Vedantists basically prove that atheist mystical experiences are not without God.

Mystical experience is not where you see through a particular tradition.

Kaufman is interesting more latter.

[mdsimpson92]

I kind of noticed that he is very partial towards the old testament. While, he then precedes to rip christianity in general. He really dislikes protestantism and people like Tillich doesn't he.

[Metacrock]

I kind of noticed that he is very partial towards the old testament. While, he then precedes to rip christianity in general. He really dislikes protestantism and people like Tillich doesn't he.

I would have thought he would be more tolerant toward Tillich. I don't recall ever seeing him speak of Tillich. Most of what I've read by him has been in connection with Nietzsche. I think also I've seen him talk about Kierkegaard and existentialism.

[mdsimpson92]

He has a whole chapeter criticising Theology in general. Again, it is in the work on scribd. He doesn't seems to think that there really is just one ultimate concern for people. He explicitly gets into tillich when he attacks theology. Now this criticism seems to be more about the fact that many theologians to him interpret the Bible to fit their needs or views.

He really seems to be more complimentary towards Judaism and the prophets. He explicitely says that comparably he didn't find much value from the new testament.

But he really seems to be aiming his criticism at liberal protestantism. He also rips into the catholics. Funny, he never actually attacks the east orthodox very much. Everyone forgets the Eastern church don't they.