My grandfather Paul Tillich, the unbelieving theologian
Paul Tillich’s claim that “God does not exist” in the usual sense prompts a wide-ranging examination of what theologians might mean by God as “being itself” rather than a discrete entity in space and time. Commenters contrast classical and modern theology, debate whether religious faith is belief without evidence or closer to trust grounded in experience, and explore how ambiguity in metaphysical language can be both intellectually fruitful and morally dangerous. Along the way, they connect these themes to logical positivism, simulations and “fine-tuning,” the limits of scientific proof, and whether morality and life’s purpose can be grounded without reference to a deity.
Nature of God and Existence
- Several comments unpack Tillich’s “God does not exist” as: existence is a property of finite things within the universe, so calling God a “being” alongside squirrels and rocks is a category mistake.
- This is linked to classical negative theology: God as beyond space, time, and predicates; known more by what God is not than by what God is.
- Comparisons are drawn to traditional views that God is “Being itself” rather than one being among others.
- Some see continuity with orthodox Christianity; others find Tillich’s formulation new‑age‑ish or dangerously vague.
Faith, Evidence, and Experience
- Sharp disagreement over whether humans “need faith.”
- One side defines religious faith as belief without evidence and rejects it as harmful or intellectually dishonest.
- Others argue:
- Everyone relies on trust/“faith” in practice (e.g., in science, institutions, bridges).
- Religious faith can be based on personal experience plus philosophical and historical arguments (especially around the Gospels and resurrection).
- Faith in scripture is described by some as confidence that motivates action, not mere assent without evidence.
- Skeptics question historical and philosophical “proofs of God,” seeing them as time‑bound or fallacious; proponents insist they are debated but not debunked.
Ambiguity, Language, and Theology
- One thread argues Tillich’s ambiguity is morally dangerous: it’s easy to co‑opt vague God‑language to avoid ethical demands.
- Others counter that all complex discourse (including physics and programming specs) contains ambiguity; some is even deliberate and useful.
- Debate over whether any theology or text can truly be “less ambiguous” than another.
Morality, Purpose, and Meaning
- Long exchange on whether moral claims (“slavery is wrong,” “we ought to reproduce”) are objective truths or subjective values rooted in biology and culture.
- One side defends moral realism: moral “oughts” are truths not reducible to feelings or evolutionary facts.
- The other side sees morality as value‑laden, contingent, and closer to shared practice than to scientific fact.
- Separately, “purpose” is discussed: some tie it biologically to reproduction; others insist that facts about evolution cannot by themselves dictate what we ought to do.
Simulation, Metaphysics, and Limits of Science
- The simulation hypothesis is used as a secular analog of “God”: an undetectable perfect simulation is logically indistinguishable from a universe sustained by a hidden deity.
- Some embrace this as pushing toward agnosticism; others criticize it as an unfalsifiable, scientifically worthless hypothesis.
- Side debates touch on falsifiability, axioms in math, and whether science can address ultimate questions.
Institutions and Power
- A quoted view portrays all institutions (including churches) as inherently prone to corruption and self‑preservation, often betraying their stated ideals.
- Commenters agree institutions are necessary yet dangerous; they must be both used and seen clearly.