Up@dawn 2.0 (blogger)

Delight Springs

Tuesday, May 4, 2021

Paul Tillich - Connor Lange Section 8 - Final Blog Post

     Paul Tillich – Dynamics of Faith

           

In this essay, I will discuss my thoughts on Paul Tillich's religion theory, which is based on his book "Dynamics of Faith." I will use examples from his text to back up my point of view. The title "Dynamics of Faith" begs the question, "What is faith?" Faith can have many different meanings, especially when used in religious contexts. In the first chapter of the book, Tillich explains faith. “Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned: faith dynamics are the dynamics of man's ultimate concern.” He also states that the concern must be unqualified. Faith does not have to be religious to exist. It does not have to be religious.  Concerns about a person's career, raising their children, or even whether a farmer's crops will grow can all be considered non-religious. In a religious context, the Jewish and Christian faith in God, as well as the Muslim faith in Allah, are good examples of “ultimate concern.”

Tillich defines faith as a centered act. “Faith as ultimate concern is a total personality act. It takes place in the center of one's personal life and includes all of its components.” Faith is the most centered act of the human mind. Faith is at the center of everything. It is a man's entire being, not just a function or section of him. Tillich, on the other hand, claims that faith is more than the sum of all man's parts or impacts. This can involve both rationality and emotion, but it transcends both. Faith can have an impact on both logic and emotion without destroying either. It is what Tillich refers to as "ecstatic."

According to Tillich, faith is both conscious and unconscious. Because faith is a total act of personality, it is impossible to imagine faith apart from one's unconscious personality elements. Faith, as a conscious act, is created by the unconscious elements. Tillich claims that if only unconscious forces determine a person's mental state, it is not faith but compulsion. He also claims that faith is synonymous with freedom. “Freedom is nothing more than the ability to engage in centered personal acts.” Because faith is a free and self-centered act of personality, freedom and faith are synonymous.

            Faith must have two sides in order to exist: the subjective side of faith and the objective side of faith. Tillich uses the terms “fides qua creditor” (the faith through which one believes) and “fides quae creditor” (the faith which is believed) to demonstrate this. Simply put, there is no faith without something to believe in. Subjectivity and objectivity are synonymous when terms like "absolute" and "ultimate" are used. God is both the subject and the object if he is the “ultimate concern.” This is regarded as true ultimacy. When faith can't be both object and subject, it's just a false ultimacy. Tillich uses the example of a nation or success to illustrate a false ultimacy.

            This brings us to the topic of true faith versus idolatrous faith. The “ultimate concern” in true faith is simply faith in the truly ultimate, such as God. The subject is the object, and the truly ultimate is infinite. “Finite realities are elevated to the rank of ultimacy” in idolatrous faith. (Page 13) The subject is nearly overtaken by the object, but this is only temporary, and the subject returns, causing "existential disappointment." This is due to the fact that it causes a loss of center and disrupts the personality, which, according to Tillich, can be hidden for a long time but always reveals itself eventually. Idolatrous faith is still regarded as faith. “The holy that is demonic remains holy.” This demonstrates how ambiguous and dangerous faith can be. Idolatry is a danger to faith, and the fact that the holy has a "demonic possibility" is the ambiguity. Tillich believes that faith can either destroy or heal us, but that we can never be without it.


Link to the YouTube video - Paul Tillich







1 comment:

  1. "begs the question" -- raises the question, you mean? (Typically, "begs the question" means something like "ducks the question" or "illicitly answers the question"...)

    I understand and agree with Tillich that faith is not exclusive to religion. I don't yet understand what it means to say that an object of faith is both object and subject, or why that's an important thing to say for Tillich. Is he clear about how he's defining these terms? I've heard critics complain of Tillich being gratuitously vague about such things.

    faith can either destroy or heal us, but that we can never be without it.

    faith can either destroy or heal us, but that we can never be without it.

    "faith can either destroy or heal us, but that we can never be without it" -- Does this mean it's impossible to live without an object of "ultimate concern"? Don't people do that all the time, though? It may not be desirable or laudable, but is it really not even possible?

    ReplyDelete