Paul is all things to all people

Since I only read two books by Tillich, this one plus "The Courage to Be", it may be somewhat risky to comment upon his ideas. This review should therefore be seen as preliminary. It's really a review of both books, although most of the contents covered are found in "The Dynamics of Faith". For those entirely new to the subject, Tillich was a Christian theologian, usually regarded as very liberal and existentialist. He was German, but fled Germany after the Nazi take-over in 1933, becoming a US citizen in 1940.

Tillich does ask interesting questions and make intruiging observations. The key sentence in "The Dynamics of Faith" is: "Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned". Since every human is ultimately concerned about something, this means that all humans have faith. The existence of faith cannot be disproven, since all attempts to do so are circular. To "disprove" faith, one must assume that there isn't anything to be ultimately concerned about. But this is in itself an ultimate statement. Besides, the philosopher who frantically attempts to prove that everything is meaningless is also ultimately concerned about something, namely the truth of his nihilism. Thus, faith is as self-evident as the Cartesian "Cogito, ergo sum".

Tillich's point, of course, is that all humans assume that there is something higher than themselves, transcending our everyday existence, something of cosmic importance. And this is not simply an abstract idea. All humans actively seek self-transcendence. All humans have faith, even the atheists. Tillich also makes an observation familiar to readers of C.S. Lewis: All humans operate on the assumption that there are universal moral laws, transcending the individual. Even more curiously, humans seemingly create moral laws that are impossible to live up to, and then feel guilty and condemned when they fail. How is this possible?

Naturally, to Tillich this all points to the existence of God. But it is here that his reasoning becomes problematic. There are myriad different conceptions of God. There are also many different opinions on morality. What religion is the true one? And what morality should we live by? Tillich cannot really answer these questions. His conception of God is strikingly similar to that found in certain forms of Hinduism. Tillich's God is really Brahman, the nameless and formless Being beyond all Being (and Non-Being). All religions are reflections of this God, but all religions are purely symbolic. Even Jesus Christ is simply a symbol. But how can we know which symbols are true, "true" in the sense of expressing the truth about God? Tillich never really answers this question. At one point, he seems to be suggesting that we don't know which faith is the true one. All faith therefore entails a risk, the risk of being wrong. At other times, Tillich says that the liberal form of Protestant Christianity is the highest religion, and that the Cross is a more authentic symbol than the symbols of other religions. However, he never explains why this is the case.

Sometimes, I get the impression that Tillich is somewhat disingenous. He defines "God" in such an abstract and nebulous manner, that any "ultimate concern" becomes "God". He also defines God as "being-itself" (perhaps Being-in-itself would be a better term). Thus, everything that exists, is God, simply by definition. By defining God in this manner, Tillich makes it impossible to falsify the idea of God. And by making Christianity symbolic, Tillich makes it impossible to falsify Christianity as well! This sounds like an attempt to save Christianity from being exposed by atheism, by making the Christian concepts completely evasive - a constantly moving target. Paul Tillich's God is all things to all people. But isn't such a God really a nullity?

But perhaps this is a rash criticism of "The Dynamics of Faith" and "The Courage to Be". Still, one wonders what solutions Tillich has to the existential problems he has raised. He doesn't believe in the traditional scenario, where a resurrected Jesus will return one day and set up a Millenium. Nor does he believe in the immortality of the soul. Indeed, he seems to regard the immortal soul as a bad idea, even symbolically speaking! In the end, he can only tell us to be courageously self-assertive in the face of Non-Being, go on living despite our feelings of meaninglessness and guilt, and risk being wrong.

This, of course, could have been said by any atheist of an existentialist bent. Which makes you wonder why "God" is needed as part of the equation at all. Even apart from it not being a very comforting answer...