Paul Tillich's Dynamics of Faith

[Hotfoot]

Link

Now, as best described to me by the person who first showed me this, this proves that everyone has faith, and that, in fact, science requires faith, and is thus a religion. Now, my opinions on this subject are very much different, given the logic behind it, but I'd like to see what you all think. Am I wrong in thinking that this descripition of faith is circular nonsense? Does this logic hold up to any sort of scrutiny? Has anyone publicly challenged this notion directly?

[AdmiralKanos]

Critical paragraphs:

{1} the intellectualistic distortion of the meaning of faith: The most ordinary misinterpretation of faith is to consider it an act of knowledge that has a low degree of evidence. Something more or less probable or improbable is affirmed in spite of the insufficiency of its theoretical substantiation. This situation is very usual in daily life. If this is meant, one is speaking of belief rather than of faith. One believes that one's information is correct.... [DF:ii.1]

[F]aith is more than trust in even the most sacred authority. It is participation in the subject of one's ultimate concern with one's whole being. Therefore, the term "faith" should not be used in connection with theoretical knowledge, whether it is a knowledge on the basis of immediate, prescientific or scientific evidence, or whether it is on the basis of trust in authorities who themselves are dependent on direct or indirect evidence. [DF:ii.1]

As you can see, he simply redefines faith to suit his purposes. Faith, according to this person, is not belief in that for which there is no supporting logic or evidence (never mind those pesky dictionary definitions of the word). No, it is "participation in the subject of one's ultimate concern with one's whole being".

In other words, this blithering idiot says that if you care about something and you participate wholeheartedly in it, then you have faith. Classic bait-and-switch (similar to the laughably stupid "proof of God's existence" that someone posted a link to a while ago). Redefine God (or "faith" in this case) to be ridiculously all-inclusive. Then, use a bunch of feeble and/or downright fallacious logic to conclude that God exists, or in this case, that everyone has faith. Then, conclude that the faith of religion (quietly shifting back to the proper definition of the word) is common to all philosophies, including science.

Pure fallacious bullshit, dressed up in the usual incredibly verbose piles of bullshit. Honestly, you need a bulldozer just to plow your way through the fucking mountains of bullshit in that article.

[The Dark]

In other words, this blithering idiot says that if you care about something and you participate wholeheartedly in it, then you have faith. Classic bait-and-switch (similar to the laughably stupid "proof of God's existence" that someone posted a link to a while ago). Redefine God (or "faith" in this case) to be ridiculously all-inclusive. Then, use a bunch of feeble and/or downright fallacious logic to conclude that God exists, or in this case, that everyone has faith. Then, conclude that the faith of religion (quietly shifting back to the proper definition of the word) is common to all philosophies, including science.

Pure fallacious bullshit, dressed up in the usual incredibly verbose piles of bullshit. Honestly, you need a bulldozer just to plow your way through the fucking mountains of bullshit in that article.

Tillich's not trying to prove that everyone believes in a God, merely that everyone has faith in something. DW, what's your definition of faith? The one generally used by people I know is trust. Given that I don't know anyone who doesn't trust in something, I would argue that everyone does have faith in something. Tillich did define religion as Ultimate Concern, and said that people could be religious and not believe in God. That would be cryptoreligion, something which does not appear to be religious but is a person's Ultimate Concern. His definition is too vague to be useful, but it's not quite the way you're representing it.

[Nova Andromeda]

{2} "the religious dimension in man's nature" or "being religious" (by which he means an aspect of the human condition, common to all people everywhere and always, regardless of their historical traditions).

--Looks like AdmiralKanos got to it before I did, but I would also point out that he butchers the common definition of religion. This is nothing more than rhetoric

[AdmiralKanos]

Tillich's not trying to prove that everyone believes in a God, merely that everyone has faith in something. DW, what's your definition of faith?

Belief in something without evidence. See the dictionary.

The one generally used by people I know is trust. Given that I don't know anyone who doesn't trust in something, I would argue that everyone does have faith in something.

I have faith in my wife not to cheat on me. That has nothing to do with his weird definition. You can voluntarily choose to trust a person. But when you blindly trust an institution or an authority, that's just crazy.

Tillich did define religion as Ultimate Concern, and said that people could be religious and not believe in God. That would be cryptoreligion, something which does not appear to be religious but is a person's Ultimate Concern. His definition is too vague to be useful, but it's not quite the way you're representing it.

Yes it is. He is trying to undermine the distinction between religion and science. In the end, he is trying to make it seem as if science is just as much a faith-based system of thought as religion, knowing perfectly well that people will interpret faith based on the traditional definition, not the bizarre one that he makes up (as I said, it's exactly like the person who tried to "prove" the existence of God ... by redefining God, knowing that if he "succeeded", he could run around crowing victory ... and people wouldn't ask him how he defined God in order to do it). It is a shameful rhetorical ploy.

[Nova Andromeda]

Tillich's not trying to prove that everyone believes in a God, merely that everyone has faith in something. DW, what's your definition of faith? The one generally used by people I know is trust. Given that I don't know anyone who doesn't trust in something , I would argue that everyone does have faith in something.

--It is my understanding that to have faith in something is to trust it without any evidence it is worthy of such trust. In this sense I have faith in nothing since anything I trust I have evidence supporting such trust (in theory). Anything I go along with without much support is just risk taking (impossible to avoid in RL). I do make mistakes as well (mistakenly trust stuff without support).

[The Dark]

Tillich's not trying to prove that everyone believes in a God, merely that everyone has faith in something. DW, what's your definition of faith?

Belief in something without evidence. See the dictionary.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing is definition #1. Your definition is #2. I guess this whole thing comes down to the differences in the definition of faith

The one generally used by people I know is trust. Given that I don't know anyone who doesn't trust in something, I would argue that everyone does have faith in something.

I have faith in my wife not to cheat on me. That has nothing to do with his weird definition. You can voluntarily choose to trust a person. But when you blindly trust an institution or an authority, that's just crazy.

Agreed, blind trust is crazy. I always question the actions undertaken within the church, and support only those that make sense to me.

Tillich did define religion as Ultimate Concern, and said that people could be religious and not believe in God. That would be cryptoreligion, something which does not appear to be religious but is a person's Ultimate Concern. His definition is too vague to be useful, but it's not quite the way you're representing it.

Yes it is. He is trying to undermine the distinction between religion and science. In the end, he is trying to make it seem as if science is just as much a faith-based system of thought as religion, knowing perfectly well that people will interpret faith based on the traditional definition, not the bizarre one that he makes up (as I said, it's exactly like the person who tried to "prove" the existence of God ... by redefining God, knowing that if he "succeeded", he could run around crowing victory ... and people wouldn't ask him how he defined God in order to do it). It is a shameful rhetorical ploy.

[/quote]
I can't speak for certain, since I can't ask Tillich (he's been dead for 33 years), but I don't believe he intended to break down the distinction between religion and science. He wasn't interested in converting people to religion, but rather in understanding why some people chose not to believe in the irrational. He never wrote intending for his theological works to be read by the "average person," but rather trained theologians and philosophers who would analyze his definitions and recognize the limitations of them. However, I truly don't know enough about Tillich as a person to say he definitely wasn't trying to break down barriers, just that there is no evidence to support it in his actions or how he released his writings. I do believe the main difference lies in the definition of faith.

[data_link]

The big problem - after the fundies realized that science was a vastly superior system, they were left without any legitimate defense against it. So they go around saying it's just another religion, in hopes that people won't actually study it and realize that it's much more than that. Especially since it doesn't rely on faith. Sadly, this defense is working because of liberal efforts that have changed the definition of open-minded to "Granting equal validity to all ideas, regardless of logical validity." In fact, I'd almost say that the left wing has dome more to help the fundies than...


HOLY SHIT!!! That idiot Shep was right. The left wing is trying to destroy us!


Edit: argument reworded to sound better.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I have faith in my wife not to cheat on me. That has nothing to do with his weird definition. You can voluntarily choose to trust a person. But when you blindly trust an institution or an authority, that's just crazy.

I'm not sure I'd even call your trust in your wife faith under the dictionary definition, belief in something without evidence. You have plenty of evidence that she wouldn't cheat on you. You would have to, or you wouldn't have married her.