Talk:Paul Tillich/Archive 1

Many Thanks to the anonymous contributor who added the excellent section on Tillich's theology on 26 February 2005. --Blainster 20:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are the concepts of 'essence' and 'existence' juxtaposed?

Criticism section

I moved the paragraph disputing Tillichs work to a separate section. This article is about Tillich, not his opponents, and their views should not be at the head of his article. --Blainster 21:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly fair. KHM03 22:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not competent to make alterations. I am not sure this is right: "Following a line similar to Kierkegaard and almost identical to that of Freud, Tillich says that in our most introspective moments we face the terror of our own nothingness." As far as I know "nothingness" was not something Kierkegaard talked about, though the word of course comes up in some twentieth century thinkers who are called existentialists. Actually I remember statement by Tillich in the History of Christian thought that he considered himself a 50/50 existentialist/essentialist.

The criticisms section, like most such sections in Wikipedia articles, does seem rather out of place. If there is going to be such a section it should surely contain more criticisms, a summary of the main criticism of Tillich's thinking (constructive and negative), rather than just the views of a couple of chaps in a book which doesn't seem to be a serious academic study. What is meant by "protestant christian thought"? Theological liberalism?! The link is directed to "liberal christianity" which covers very many sorts of views. CSMR 12:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

favor?

I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Beyond essence

The quote from Tillich cited in the theology section says that God is "beyond essence and existence." This seems to contradict the second paragraph of the theology section which says that the ground of being is essence (and God, of course, is the ground of being). Someone, de-confuse me! And the article, while you're at it! --Rainada 04:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it would appear that the philosopher Sidney Hook shared in your confusion. In fact he seemed to think that this sort of confusion lied at the heart of his work as a theologian. --JimFarm 13:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tillich's theology requires careful explication, and the current article is somewhat lacking in that regard. You are correct that many people are confused by Tillich's work, but that is often because they are relying on the descriptions by others who don't understand him, rather than reading him themselves. The reasons for the difficulties in talking about God have been discussed by countless theologians and sages over the centuries. Language is fraught with problems in attempting to express that which is utlimately unexpressable. For example when Wittgenstein addressed this issue in his 1922 Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus he was misunderstood by the logical positivists. He was not saying that mysticism did not exist, he said that it couldn't be adequately talked about. Similarly, Tillich was trying to say that God does not exist as a being, an object or category, but that God is being itself, beyond all categories or particularized conceptions. In this sense Tillich is an atheist, not because he does not accept God, but because he does not accept the traditional theistic concept of an anthropomorphized God. Those who have had the mystical experience of God can understand this, but it cannot be adequately explained to others. Christians have a similar difficulty in trying to explain their life in Christ to those who have not experienced it. And more mundanely, bicyle riders have difficulty explaining to those who have never ridden one how the rider "becomes one with the bicycle". --Blainster 17:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in Tillich's thought to suggest that he defines the God of Theism as an anthropomorphic (manlike) God -- a being with arms and legs and a head who sits on a throne in heaven, a la the apostles creed ("sitteth"). Tillich has plainly said that God is "not a being" -- not a single being. That covers the spirit God that most of today's educated Christians believe in.

Your implication that Tillich does believe in the God of theism as most of today's Christians conceive him -- an intangible, amorphous spirit, possibly omnipresent rather than spatially localized, sitting on a throne -- is untenable. To begin with, Tillich identifies "the anti-supernaturalistic attitude"as "something . . . that is fundamental to ALL my thinking" (Ultimate Concern: Tillich in Dialogue, 158). The word "all" leaves no room for exceptions -- no room for a spirit (rather than anthropomorphic) being.

Take away Tillich's symbolic pronouns ("He," "Him," and "His") and Tillich has made it perfectly clear that he does not believe in any sort of theistic God, whether anthropomorphic or a spirit. “There are no valid arguments for the ‘existence’ of God” (Courage to Be, 181). Also: “If ‘existence’ refers to something which can be found within the whole of reality, no divine being exists” (Dynamics of Faith, 47). Again: “Theism has made God a heavenly, completely perfect person who resides above the world and mankind. The protest of atheism against such a highest person is correct” (ST-1, 245). And again: “Atheism is a correct response to the ‘objectively’ existing God of literalistic thought” (On the Boundary, 65). Once more: “The half-blasphemous and mythological concept of the ‘existence of God’ has arisen. And so have the abortive attempts to prove the existence of this ‘object.’ To such a concept and to such attempts atheism is the right religious and theological reply” (Theology of Culture, 25). But, if one assumes that attempts to prove God’s existence have indeed been “abortive,” might not faith be adequate to establish God’s existence? Not according to Tillich: “Nothing is more undignified than to make faith do duty for evidence which is lacking” (ST-3, 131).

Your implication (intended?) that Tillich's God is "mystical" hardly squares with your earlier implication that his God is theistic but nonanthropomorphic (i.e., a spirit God, not really the image of man). The metaphysical interpretations, moreover, are specifically rejected by Tillich. Discussing metaphysics, he decried as “speculative-fantastic” the ideas of those who “attempt to establish a world behind the world” (ST-1, 20). With specific reference to pantheism, which he defines as “the doctrine that God is the substance [Spinoza] or essence [Hegel] of all things,” Tillich wrote: “I have written of the God above the God of theism. This has been misunderstood as a dogmatic statement of pantheistic or mystical character” (ST-2, 12). Tillich rejected any interpretation that “identifies God with the universe, with its essence or with special powers within it” (ST-2, 6-7). “The main argument against naturalism in whatever form is that . . . the term ‘God’ becomes interchangeable with the term ‘universe’ and therefore is semantically superfluous” (ST-2, 7). Emphasizing this point, he opposed “a theology that imagines a supra-natural world beside or above the natural one” (Protestant Era, 82). A pantheistic God is endlessly extended in space, encompassing the farthest material in our vast universe. Yet Tillich asserted that God is not “endlessly extended in space” (ST-1, 276-77). Tillich also said the God above God “transcends both mysticism and the person-to-person encounter” (Courage to Be, 178).

Besides all that, all metaphysical gods -- pantheist gods, mystical gods, the Logos -- are supernatural, whereas (to repeat) Tillich says he is opposed to ALL forms of supernaturalism. His God is a nonsupernatural God. The all-inclusive nature of Tillich's No to the supernatural is the basis for Tillich's rejecting "a conditioning of the unconditional." That statement means that Tillich's No to the supernatural is not subject to the condition that God is an exception to the rule.

Tillich's God is a nonsupernatural God, humanity. As such, it is a figurative God, not a literal God. Tillich was a humanist, and he said that God is man's ultimate concern, which varies from person to person. In our society, among Christians, this ultimate concern is the God of theism--sometimes the image of man, sometimes a spirit. But for the humanist (who is also an atheist), God is something else. "For humanism the divine is manifest in the human: the ultimate concern of man is man" (Dynamics of Faith, p. 63).

Saul Tillich (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the reference to Wittgenstein is apt in terms of helping us to understand Tillich, and the different attitudes that people have taken to Wittgenstein's last proposition in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" correspond, at least roughly, with the different attitudes that people have taken to Tillich. Thus, Frank Ramsey said of Wittgenstein's proposition, "If youcan't say it you can't say it, and you can't whistle it either."

And the logical empiricist, Otto Neurath, asserted:

"The conclusion of the Tractatus, 'whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent,' is at least grammatically misleading. It sounds as if there were a 'something' of which we could not speak. We should rather say, 'If one really wishes to avoid the metaphysical attitude entirely, then one will "be silent," but not "about something." (From his essay "Sociology and Physicalism". In Logical Positivism, edited by A. J. Ayer. Glencoe, IL).

My own inclinations are more to the views of Ramsey and Neurath, than they are to those of Wittgenstein, in his more mystical moods or Tillich. --JimFarm 02:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

EXPLANATION OF "BEYOND ESSENCE AND EXISTENCE"

"Beyond essence and existence" is the language of Hegelian dialectics. Tillich uses both the language and the dialectical formulations of Hegel extensively. Hegelian dialectics is different from Barthian dialectics. A Hegelian dialectic moves from (1) thesis to (2) antithesis to (3) synthesis, where the synthesis is a sort of compromise; in some forms it takes one element of a two-part thesis and combines it with one element of a two-part antithesis to create a two-part synthesis.

One of Hegel's basic dialectics goes from (1) a THESIS of potential essence [potential + essence] to (2) an ANTITHESIS of actual existence [actual + existence], also called estrangement or self-alienation, to (3) their SYNTHESIS, actual essence [actual from the antithesis + essence from the thesis]. In Hegel's philosophy, the metaphysical Spirit (the essence of everything in the physical universe) overcomes self-estrangement (failure of "subject"--the observer--to recognize itself in external "objects") when a particular subject, Hegel, finally realizes that he is looking at himself when he looks at other things and persons, because he and everything external are essentially Spirit. (The Spirit has no independent mind of its own; its only mind is the collective minds of human beings, who are part of the Spirit -- along with the stars, the moon, trees, lakes, mountains, stoves, and shirts.)

Tillich's theology simply substitutes humanity for Hegel's metaphysical Spirit as the "universe" that is the "Absolute" (highest principle). Tillich's God is humanity. "God as a living God must be described in dialectical statements" (ST-2, p. 90).

Humanity moves from (1) a THESIS, potential essence [potential + essence], wherein humanity is potentially God but not actually God because individual humans do not recognize humanity as God--a figurative God-- to (2) an antithesis of actual existence [actual + existence], wherein mankind's "existential predicament" is that humanity is "estranged" from itself because individual humans worship the wrong God, the God of theism, to (3) the dialectical SYNTHESIS of actual essence [actual + essence, or part of the thesis + part of the antithesis]. This Tillichian self-realization occurs when individual humans recognize humanity as the true God.

Tillichian self-realization is only "fragmentary," because only a few humans recognize the true God ("the God above the God of theism"). The Kingdom of God will not arrive until God (Tillich's God) is "all to all" -- all humanity to all human beings. So our "existential predicament" is that we are stuck in the antithesis, which is "estrangement." Man is estranged from himself. That is why Tillich writes, "Man as he EXISTS is not what he ESSENTIALLY is and ought to be. He is estranged from his true being" (ST-2, p. 45). That is, in the essence-EXISTENCE-essence dialectic, man is still at the "existence" stage, the antithesis; "existence" is the state of estrangement, self-estrangement, man estranged from himself. He will become "what he essentially is and ought to be" only when all men recognize all humanity as God.

Any God that is less than ALL humanity -- a nation, an ethnic group, an ideology, a religion -- is "demonic" or "idolatrous." Why? Because it is not "infinite" or "unconditioned." Tillich does not use "infinite" in the mathematical sense of infinity; he uses it to mean not less than all members (persons) of the group (humanity) that constitutes "God." "Infinite" means NOT LIMITED to a certain subset of human beings. "Unconditioned" means the same thing. It means humanity's status as the God above God is not subject to the condition that certain persons or groups are excepted from the definition of God; the God above God includes ALL of humanity. (In some contexts "unconditioned" can mean that Tillich's No to the supernatural is not subject to the condition that God is an exception to Tillich's No to supernaturalism.)

Now you can see why Tillich says the Christian Church is "demonic." Only when a "holy community of universal inclusiveness [all humanity]" replaces the Christian Church's "demonic exclusiveness [no Jews, no Muslims, no Hindus, etc.]" will the Church cease being demonic (Systematic Theology, v. 3, p. 262).

To summarize, "beyond essence and existence" means "beyond thesis and antithesis." The dialectical synthesis, as the third stage of a dialectic, is "beyond" the first two stages. God does not come into existence AS GOD ("self-realization") until a person recognizes God (either Hegel's Spirit or Tillich's humanity) as "God."

Nobody who is not well grounded in Hegelian-Marxian dialectics is going to understand Tillich's philosophical theology, Tillich's Hegelian terminology, or the identity of the God above the God of theism. That is why I am trying to revise the article. Whoever wrote it is thoroughly confused. Tillich does not use a "metaphysical approach"; he is not a metaphysician--not a pantheist, not a nontheistic mystic, not a fan of the Greek logos. Tillich has specifically disavowed "ALL" forms of supernaturalism. And in several places he has also specifically disavowed pantheism and mysticism, both of which are forms of supernaturalism.

Tillich is famous for saying God is "not a being." He italicizes the a. Without the italics, "a" could be interpreted as the article "a" (a, an, and the are "articles"). But when italicized, the a clearly means "one." Tillich is saying God is "not one being." That means God is many beings. But which beings constitute the God above God. Is it horses? Eagles? Salmon? The entire animal kingdom plus humanity? The only beings that make sense as a nonsupernatural God are HUMAN beings; hence, "God is [human] being itself."

In another dialectic, the thesis and antithesis are God and man. God is the source of wisdom and morality for theists; man is the source of wisdom and morality for atheists. So God and man are opposites -- thesis and antithesis. This gives us a Hegelian-style dialectic that moves from (1) God, the thesis, to (2) man, the antithesis, to (3) God = man, the synthesis.

Still another of Tillich's dialectics confirms that the God above the God of theism is nonsupernatural. What Tillich calls "the divine life" is "thinking" that "goes through 'yes' [thesis] and 'no' [antithesis] and 'yes' [synthesis, a HIGHER 'yes'] again" (ST-2, p. 234). Man starts his "divine life" as a theist. This gives us a two-part THESIS: Yes to God + Yes to the supernatural in general. Then man ceases to believe and becomes an atheist. The result is a two-part ANTITHESIS: No to God + No to the supernatural in general. Finally, man becomes a humanist (defined as a person who views humanity as God). This gives us a two-part SYNTHESIS: Yes to God (from the thesis) + No to the supernatural (from the antithesis). The result is Tillich's NONSUPERNATURAL GOD. That nonsupernatural God is humanity--the HIGHER Yes, "the God ABOVE the God of theism."

Don't be fooled by Tillich's use of "He, "His," and "Him" in reference to God. Those words are symbols. They can't be taken literally. "He" really means "it," humanity.

Saul Tillich (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to comment on the apparent (but unreal) "contradiction" you inquired about. You say that God's being "beyond essence and existence" seems to contradict Tillich's assertion that God is essence. Tillich uses "God" in two senses. Sometimes "God" refers to the supernatural God of theism; other times it refers to Tillich's nonsupernatural God above God, humanity. In the Yes-No-Yes (2nd Yes = higher Yes that incorporates the No), the initial Yes (thesis) is a Yes to the God of theism, which is POTENTIAL ESSENCE. (It isn't realized essence, because this initial Yes is a Yes to the wrong God.) The No (antithesis) is a No to the God of theism and to supernaturalism in general. The second Yes (synthesis) is a Yes to a different God, Tillich's God above the God of theism. This God is ACTUAL ESSENCE. So God in the first sense, the God of theism, can be essence in the sense of POTENTIAL essence even though the true God, the "God above God," is "beyond essence and existence" -- beyond the thesis and antithesis. In other words, ACTUAL essence (the God above the God of theism) is beyond both POTENTIAL essence (thesis) and actual existence (antithesis).

Saul Tillich (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

this is all interesting, but much of it appears to be your own synthesis and original research. the subject matter demands as much scope from reliable sources as possible, with as little editorial as possible, otherwise we're merely reproducing our own interpretations of what Tillich wrote - and that's not what an encyclopedia is for. Anastrophe (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe, apparently you wrote the above paragraph before I completed my lengthy rebuttal (below) of your assertion that the revised article is "original research." I suggest that you read that rebuttal.

Also, why do you say that my sources are not "reliable sources." Can you be more specific? Are the cited quotations from Tillich himself unreliable? If not, just what are these sources that I cited but that you say are unreliable? Do you regard Robert Tucker, a Harvard PhD with a strong background in the thought of Hegel and Marx, unreliable? Do you regard the quotations from Hegel and Marx as unreliable? (These are primary sources, not secondary sources which are less reliable than primary sources.)

You also complain about the "scope" of my sources. I assume that by scope you mean variety. Why do you assert that 20 books by Tillich (in one case an essay in someone else's book) and 19 books and articles by other authors are lacking in scope? Why do you imply that the 6 references to other authors (other than Tillich) in the article you favor provide more scope than the 19 that I cite?

I find in your comments a shocking disregard for accuracy. The accuracy of what I have written is thoroughly documented. And, in my comments below, I explain how thoroughly inaccurate -- and otherwise deficient -- the present article is. Yet you want to keep the inaccurate article, along with its extremely weak documentation and its demonstrably incorrect assertion that Tillich was a metaphysical supernaturalist. Is that what encyclopedias are for--to disseminate falsehoods?

My strong suspicion is that you yourself regard Tillich as a supernaturalist and are determined to see that no evidence to the contrary gets into wiki. In other words, you seem to be using the author of the present article as a proxy for yourself, which makes you one of those who you say are "merely reproducing our own interpretations." Your own interpretation seems to be that Tillich was a metaphysician, and you are determined to keep that as a wiki interpretation. "Improper format" becomes a pretext for preserving your own uninformed interpretation.

I must also object to your unrealistic assertion that the article should have no interpretation. Good grief! Tillich is surely one of the authors most needful of interpretation who has ever written. That is because he DELIBERATELY tried to be obscure. He tried to convey different meanings to different audiences. He himself admitted this, and I provide citations of that fact. Walter Kaufmann has thoroughly discussed Tillich's use of "double-speak." Tillich's terminology is deliberately obscure and begs for interpretation. He is no ordinary theologian or philosopher. He doesn't define his terms; he doesn't say what he means; he often seems to be saying the opposite of what he means (e.g., by saying "He" when he means humanity). The only way a person can understand him is to first acquire an understanding of Hegel, Marx, and Hegelian-Marxian dialectics. I have that understanding and so do a few other people; most of Tillich's interpreters do not. So is it your position that avoiding interpretation even in those cases that are the most demanding of interpretation is more important than accuracy and understanding?

Since you implicitly believe that Tillich can be taken literally and requires no interpretation, I'm going to insert here two paragraphs from my revision in which Tillich himself contradicts your belief:

Don’t take Tillich's “He” literally. “He” and “Him” really mean “it” (humanity). Tillich’s equivocal pronouns are among the reasons Kaufmann asserted that Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Rudolf Bultmann all “say No [to the God of theism] in ways that sound like Yes” (Kaufman, 111). Those misleading pronouns also explain why Alasdair MacIntyre wrote, “Even if we were to concede Tillich a verbal triumph over the atheist, the substance of atheism has been conceded” (MacIntyre, 6). Tillich himself, alluding to his own terminology without making this clear, wrote that “all visible things have a surface” that represents “what things seem to be.” The surface often disappoints, whereas “the truth which does not disappoint dwells below the surfaces” (Foundations, 53). Tillich is subtly implying that his words have a surface meaning intended for the faithful and a deeper meaning intended for those who are ready to doubt. Is this interpretation warranted? Tillich: “I have always felt that there might be a few who are able to register the shaking of the foundations [of Christianity]-–who are . . . courageous enough to withstand the unavoidable enmity of the many. To these few my words are particularly directed” (Foundations, 9; cf. Dialogue, 191, 197-98).

In another sermon, Tillich practically confessed to using what, in the earlier quotation, Kaufmann called double-speak. “The theologian, in his theology, must become all things to all men” (Foundations, 123). That is, the theologian must convey different meanings to different listeners. “We [theologians] must become as though weak, although . . . we are not weak . . . . by participating–not from the outside, but from the inside–in the weakness of all those to whom we speak as theologians” (Foundations, 125). The true “theologian” must undermine Christian belief “from the inside” (from inside the Church) by becoming a subversive–-pretending to believe while privately giving new substance to words like “God,” “He,” and “Him.”

Saul Tillich (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A Fatal Pedagogical Error"

"A fatal pedagogical error is to throw answers like stones at the heads of those who have not yet asked the questions"

I have seen/heard this quote many times in articles and speeches and it is usually attributed to Paul Tillich. I have not been able to find it in his work, but I believe he may have said it during one of his lectures in Chicago.

Does anybody know the source of this quotation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merryl (talk • contribs) 14:29, July 24, 2006 (UTC)

The quote is listed at a handful of sites on Google, but none of them cites a source. It does not appear in any of the 20 or so books and articles by Tillich at religion-online.org. --Blainster 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul Tillich and Calvinism

I noticed Paul Tillich has been added to the Calvinism project. Since he was a Lutheran existentialist theologian, why was he added? --Blainster 16:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Was Tillich so much a 'Lutheran', or in actuality from the German Evangelical tradition (the union of German Lutheran and German Reformed churches in Germany)? My understanding was that he was brought to America connected with the Evangelical Synod of North America (the same denomination of the Niebuhr brothers), which subsequently became part of the Evangelical and Reformed Church, and then finally part of the United Church of Christ. Also, I suspect one could probably make the case that Tillich's influence was probably greater on moderate-to-liberal Reformed type folks (the United Church of Christ, moderate-to-liberal Presbyterians, etc.) than it has been on Lutherans. I will confess that I don't have much at hand in the way of sources/citations for any of this at the moment. Emerymat 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting subject. According to Tillich's book My Search for Absolutes, his father was a minister in the "Prussian Territorial Church". Tillich distinguished between a Lutheran wing and a Reformed wing in the Continental Reformation. He says I was always at odds with the Ritschlian theology which establishes an infinite gap between nature and personality... When I came to America I found that Calvinism and Puritanism were natural allies of Ritschlianism in this respect. (p. 25) Over the next couple of pages he clearly identifies himself with the Lutheran, rather than the Reformed tradition: on Lutheran ground the vision of the presence of the infinite in everything finite is theologically affirmed, whereas on Calvinistic ground such an attitude is suspect of pantheism, and the divine transcendence is understood in a way which for a Lutheran is suspect of deism. I think these statements clearly separate him from the Calvinist tradition. --Blainster 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tillich's faculty appointments

Publically available biographical data (see [1]) states Tillich moved from Harvard to the University of Chicago in 1962, where he remained until his death. He may have guest lectured at Duke University as he did at a number of schools, but I see no evidence he ever held a faculty appointment there, so I am removing that reference. --Blainster 21:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this citation supports it: [2]. LaszloWalrus 07:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The article you reference is quite interesting, but it does not support the claim that Tillich held a faculty position at Duke. The article lists six German emigrés hired by Duke, but Tillich is not among them. It does say that he visited Duke a number of times, but that does not mean he was on the faculty. --Blainster 03:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of citations

i'm rather surprised at the amount of narrative in this article that lacks any justification from WP:RS. the last paragraph of the article takes the cake. who is saying this? the article badly needs to be either trimmed of these personal observations, or citations need to be found to back them up. i'm tempted to tag the article as needing more references, but hopefully some of those dedicated to this article will come forward with the effort.Anastrophe 16:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You arrived an hour after an anonymous editor added the paragraph you referred to. It is obviously personal opinion, and thus inappropriate. Most of the rest of the article was created by editors familiar with Tillich's life and work, but it definitely needs more specific citations. If you can help with this, please join in. --Blainster 09:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks. i should have checked that (the edit history), my apologies. if i knew more about the subject i'd help out, but i don't. my mom was a student and friend of his - that's about the extent of my 'expertise' on the subject! Anastrophe 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The lack of citations (none at all in the foolish "Bultmann's Influence" section) is one of many reasons why I am trying to get my rewrite accepted. (But the main reason is that the article is full of errors.) My rewrite has literally dozens of citations, mostly to things written by Tillich.

Saul Tillich (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

generally speaking, one doesn't upload an entirely new article to replace an existing article - no matter how bad the previous article was. your edits wiped out a desireable photograph, eliminated most of the wiki formatting, introduced a ponderous bibliography (which - while well-intentioned - falls outside the scope of an encyclopedic article) and while it contained some references, few were inline-cites which are most desireable. instead of doing a wholesale replacement of the article, try working on the article a paragraph at a time. if the edits are a clear improvement, your fellow editors will be happily leave them intact, or modify them as needed. wholesale replacement discourages the cooperative nature of editing on wikipedia, and makes vetting of the material much, much harder. start with small bites. Anastrophe (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

re citations

the following was left on my talk page:

Anastrophe,

In the Paul Tillich article, I attempted to explain a specific quote in greater detail. :Since the original explanation that I added to is not cited either, shouldn't it also be :removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.148.241 (talk) 20:28, 10 November :2007 (UTC)

rather than gutting the article - because most of it lacks citations - my interest is in preventing the inclusion of ever more layers of unreferenced and uncited commentary. i would recommend that you either provide citations for the information you've already added, or remove it. frankly, the article should be gutted - it's in gross violation of wikipedia policies. Anastrophe 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know enough about theology to fix it myself, but coming to it as a general reader (which is the target readership of Wikipedia) I can find no indication of where the information comes from, nor specific citations where I could verify that it represents Tillich's views. I'm added unreferencedsect tags. Gordonofcartoon 03:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

fair warning. the article has been tagged as in need of citation since october. most sections have been tagged as having no citations since november. there's been no positive action on improving the article in that time. per wikipedia policy, and as noted in each of these tags, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". if there's no significant improvement by january 1, 2008, i plan on purging all unsourced material from the article. frankly, it would be for the best. starting from 'scratch' may be just the tonic the article needs to come into compliance. finding citations for all of the WP:OR that riddles this article will be well-nigh impossible anyway. Anastrophe (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Tillich and sex

This may be a very old topic long discarded, but would it not be in the interest of telling the truth about the article's subject to mention Tillich's well-attested (well, his wife attested to it anyway) fondness for pornography? [3]Lexo 16:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia isn't interested in truth, it is interested in verifiability. and, of course, relevance. is a 'fondness for pornography' relevant? Anastrophe 19:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming verifiability, I think such background about his personal life is essential to this being a general biography of Tillich as a person, warts and all, as opposed to being an article about his theology and philosophy. Compare Percy Grainger.

Dwelling excessively on that detail alone would be undue weight, but not in the context of other major non-theological aspects of his life and relationships that are omitted: the divorce from his first wife following her adultery with Richard Wegener, Tillich's subsequent exploration of a Bohemian lifestyle, the death of his sister, his complicated early relationship with and later open marriage to Hannah, and so on. See the Time article, Paul Tillich, Lover. All of this should be in the Biography section. Gordonofcartoon 02:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

interesting original research

User:Saul Tillich replaced this article with what apparently was entirely his own version of the article. Had it included proper inline refs, and not begun with unsourced original research, it might have been a good start. however, it fails pretty simply on the basis of being inadequately formatted for wiki, and apparently being a personal synthesis. the user is welcome to attempt some cooperative editing with other editors here, either by posting portions on talk for vetting, or even replacing paragraphs where they seem appropriate, but as it stands it took what is currently a bad article and made it much, much worse. again, i'm happy to work cooperatively on changes, but attempting to go through an entirely new article lacking proper inline cites and formatting is not the process by which progress is made in making this a genuinely good article. Anastrophe (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

REBUTTAL (by Saul Tillich)

Unsourced Original [sic] Research

Anastrophe is wrong in many respects. The reference to "unsourced original material" and "entirely his own version" is demonstrably wrong. Tillich's "God above the God of theism" has been identified for 38 years--ever since the publication in 1970 of Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God (Johns Hopkins Press), by Leonard F. Wheat. Everything in the article can be found in that source. And that source is thoroughly documented in the revised article.

Tillich's being an atheist is not "unsourced original material" either. In addition to quotations from Tillich himself and from Wheat, there are references to two books by Walter Kaufmann, who also recognized Tillich as an atheist; both books were published in 1961. Alasdair MacIntyre, writing in 1963, also identified Tillich as an atheist, and MacIntyre is cited as saying so. Rabbi Bernard Martin also seemed to regard Tillich as an atheist--1963 again--and Martin is cited in reference to this interpretation.

On the subtopic of Hegelian-Marxian dialectics, I cited not only (1) Wheat but (2) Robert Tucker, who wrote a book about Marx and also commented on Hegel, and (3) Tillich, who explained the relationship between thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics and the Christian concept of separation and return. So where is this originality to which you refer?

Granted, the revised section on "Influences" is original, but it is pretty much a straightforward recitation of facts, which are not original, except for the index counts of Tillich citations of several German philosophers. This section does contain material that can be construed of rebuttal of the earlier article's assertion that Tillich was influenced by Bultmann, a thoroughly false (and undocumented) assertion. But if that's a problem, you could simply delete the sentences that refer to Bultmann rather than undoing the entire "Influences" section. By the way, the first sentence's reference (under "Influences") that "the author of an earlier 'Bultmann’s Influence' section in this article asserted that Tillich was influenced by his contemporary Rudolf Bultmann" is not intended as rebuttal; it is intended as documentation. I don't know who the Bultmann-influenced-Tillich author is and therefore can cite him only by referring to the original article.

Aren't you using a double standard? If originality in the "Influences" section bothers you, than why didn't you also delete (undo) the previous section titled "Bultmann's Influence"? That is just as unoriginal as my replacement section. And it has no documentation whatsoever, whereas my revised section is thoroughly documented. There is no way you can have a section on influences without some originality.

Which is worse, (1) a section that is unoriginal but accurate or (2) a section that is (a) unoriginal, (b) inaccurate, (c) incredibly incomplete, and (d) undocumented?

In-line Documentation

Your statement that the revised article has "improper in-line refs" and "fails pretty simply on the basis of being inadequately formatted for wiki" is at best weak. Your criticism is much too abstract. But I suspect you are bothered by (1) the placement of some in-line refs at the end of the line rather than immediately after the quotation, (2) the substitution of titles for author in the citations of works by Tillich, and (3) the use of shortened titles in those same citations. Let's take these three points in order.

(1) PLACEMENT: The Chicago Manual of Style (the most widely used style manual in America), 15th ed., para. 11.79, says: "A parenthetical reference need not immediately follow the quotation as long as it is clear what it belongs to. For an example, see 11.76 [where the citation goes immediately before the period]." The MLA [Modern Language Association] Style Manual, the second most widely used style manual in America, says, "To avoid interrupting the flow of your writing, place the [parenthetical reference where a pause would naturally occur (prefereably at the end of a sentence), as near as possible material documented" (p.233). The not-necessarily-at-the-end-of-sentence style is followed in nearly all academic journals that use in-line citations rather than notes. It is common sense. Sometimes a middle-of-sentence location works for a citation, but more often than not it interrupts the flow of reasoning or explanation.

Wiki, I'll grant, uses something called Harvard Referencing, but Wiki's "Citing Sources" pages provide no illustrations.

(2) AUTHOR-ONLY CITATIONS: Academic journals almost always use author [last name only] + page citations (and no p. or pp.) The reason is obvious: this style minimizes the interruption and shortens the text. Neither the author's full name nor the title of the book or article cited is necessary, because they can be found in the bibliography or "Works Cited." In other words, keep the text as clean as possible. See MLA 233 for examples.

(3) TITLE-ONLY CITATIONS: The article cites 20 works by Tillich. Therefore, author-only citations cannot be used for works by Tillich. So I instead use shortened titles in place of author; the text always makes it clear that the cited work is by Tillich. Citing the full title is unnecessary and too interruptive; interruptions should be minimized. Shortened titles are widely used in publishing, although usually with endnotes.

(4) THE ENDNOTE OPTION: Using endnotes in place of in-line citations is foolhardy in an article of this sort. Sooner or later -- probably sooner -- revisions will be introduced that add or delete notes. Then all notes following the added/deleted note have to be renumbered. And it won't be long before some reviser errs and the numbering gets all fouled up: the endnotes will no longer match the citations.

Although I think your insistence on a narrow style for in-line citations is far too doctrinaire, I am willing to revise all the notes if you will spell out with examples how you want the notes formatted. I strongly urge you to reconsider your aversion to end-of-sentence notes.

Needless to say, I think your form-is-more-important-than-substance attitude is deplorable. If you think something is wrong with the form, why not volunteer to help correct it instead of throwing the revision in the trash?

Other Formatting

Your "lacking . . . formatting" criticism is much too abstract. Does it relate strictly to in-line citations, or do you have other formatting problems? Do you object to my bold-face secondary headings? If so, I would say that you have little understanding of what it takes to help readers follow a discussion.

By the way, if the absence of links to other wiki articles is part of the formatting problem as you perceive it, that's your fault. You deleted the article before I had a chance to add the links--which is a simple task that you could have undertaken yourself if you don't trust me.

The Bibliography

Now let's look at the sections of the original article and consider why they need to be revised. I'll take them in order, starting with the bibliography.

The bibliography is too short and too undiscriminating. What was the author (you?) thinking when he/she inserted the sentence that reads, "At an early age Tillich held an appreciation for nature and the countryside into which he had been born." That information is arbitrary and undiscriminating; it leads nowhere, provides no insight into Tillich philosophical theology.

And the "Biography" has no citations. I can't for the life of me figure out why you deleted my revision, which is detailed and gives detailed citations (at the end) in favor of a sketchy, poorly written bibliography with no citations. Your actions strike me as just a bit heavy-handed. Can you explain them?

Bultmann's Influence

As I said at the outset, you undid my accurate and well documented revision of the "Influences" section in favor of a totally undocumented earlier section. Your only objection seems to be that the revision is too original ("entirely his own"). Yet you fail to delete "Bultmann's Influence," which is also original. Double standard?

As a compromise, I suggest that you simply strike or revise the few sentences that refer to Bultmann.

Tillich's Theology

The writer of the article I revised has absolutely no understanding of Tillich. Just about everything he says is either false or too abstract to explain anything.

The first problem is that his first paragraph alludes to Tillich's "method of correlation" without understanding what it is. What he does say about correlation is false. Read my section on "The Method of Correlation" for further information.

The second problem, a profound one, is the author's misconception that Tillich is a supernaturalist, specifically, a person who uses a "metaphysical approach" (2nd paragraph, 1st line). Tillich identifies “the anti-supernaturalistic attitude” as “something . . . that is fundamental to all my thinking” (Dialogue, 158, italics added). The word “all” leaves no room for any sort of supernatural God. Lest anyone doubt that “all” really means all, Tillich specifically disavowed belief in the supernatural events described in the Bible (e.g., God’s creating Adam and Eve, the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection of Jesus), Jesus’s being the Son of God or God incarnate, divine law, divine forgiveness, the supernatural Trinity, humans possessed by a supernatural Holy Spirit that comes down from heaven, immortal souls, the second coming of the Christ, future resurrection of the dead, and life beyond the grave (Wheat, 30-47). For example, the story of Adam and Eve is “an old myth” (Eternal, 16), and “immortality” is just “a popular superstition” (ST-3, 409-10). The all--inclusive nature of Tillich’s No to the supernatural is the basis for Tillich’s rejecting “a conditioning of the unconditional”--making the unconditional No to supernaturalism subject to the condition that God is excepted (Protestant, 82). And the all-inclusive No–the absolute No–is likewise the basis for Tillich’s saying that “facing the God who is really God means facing the absolute threat of nonbeing”–the nonbeing of everything supernatural (Courage, 39).

The author's metaphysical interpretation is specifically rejected by Tillich. Discussing metaphysics, he decried as “speculative-fantastic” the ideas of those who “attempt to establish a world behind the world” (ST-1, 20). With specific reference to pantheism, which he defines as “the doctrine that God is the substance [Spinoza] or essence [Hegel] of all things,” Tillich wrote: “I have written of the God above the God of theism. This has been misunderstood as a dogmatic statement of pantheistic or mystical character” (ST-2, 12). Tillich rejected any interpretation that “identifies God with the universe, with its essence or with special powers within it” (ST-2, 6-7). “The main argument against naturalism in whatever form is that . . . the term ‘God’ becomes interchangeable with the term ‘universe’ and therefore is semantically superfluous” (ST-2, 7). Emphasizing this point, he opposed “a theology that imagines a supra-natural world beside or above the natural one” (Protestant, 82).

A metaphysical God is endlessly extended in space, encompassing the farthest material in our vast universe. Yet Tillich asserted that God is not “endlessly extended in space” (ST-1, 276-77). (So far, humanity hasn't gotten much beyond earth.) Tillich also said the God above God “transcends both mysticism and the person-to-person encounter” (Courage, 178).

In short, the author does not know what he is talking about and does not understand Tillich. He does not understand that Tillich is using symbolic language--pouring new wine into old wineskins--that, in part, is also Hegelian metaphysical language with new substance, new meaning.

The "Theology" section's third paragraph begins: "Another name for the ground of being [God] is essence." False again. The author does not understand Hegelian dialectics and Hegelian terminology. "Essence" is really the label for the first and third stages of a Hegelian thesis-antithesis-antithesis dialectic; "existence" is the middle stage, the antithesis. I explain this in an earlier part of this "Talk" page, so I won't repeat the details here. Please read what I wrote in that earlier discussion. Suffice it to say here that potential or "unconscious" essence (thesis) is the state of the Absolute (Hegel's metaphysical Spirit, Tillich's humanity) when the essence-existence-essence dialectic begins. Realized or conscious essence (synthesis) materializes when an individual human being recognizes all external "objects" in his "universe" (the physical universe for Hegel, humanity for Tillich) as himself. "Existence," the antithesis of the original essence, is what you have when the conscious observer does NOT recognize that he is essentially the same as ("one" with) all external "objects" (things in the physical universe for Hegel, all other persons for Tillich).

The fourth paragraph says, again falsely, that "existence is that which is finite." Existence is actually two things, or two ways of looking at the same thing. First, "existence" is the middle stage (the antithesis) of a three-stage dialectic. It refers to what is actual. Second, existence is a state where the observer perceives everything external in his "universe" (either Hegel's physical universe or Tillich's humanity) as something other than himself. In Hegel's philosophy, the Spirit is estranged from itself because human minds (the only "mind" Spirit has) fail to realize that everything they see is Spirit, hence themselves (the observers are also Spirit). In Tillich's philosophy, humanity is estranged from itself because human minds fail to realize that all other humans are themselves, humanity, viewed as God. In other words, we are estranged from ourselves because we worship the wrong God, the God of theism, instead of worshiping "the God above the God of theism," humanity.

"That which is finite" is not existence but that which is PARTICULAR, contrasted with GENERAL, or in Hegel's language UNIVERSAL. Hegel's Spirit has two sides: universal (general) and particular. The universe (the physical universe for Hegel) is "infinite"; the things the universe comprises are the particulars, which are "finite." In Tillich's theology, humanity (general) is the "infinite", and individual men are "finite" (particular). Tillich also uses the words "absolute" (infinite) and "concrete" (finite) to mean the same thing. "God" is both universal and particular, one and many. Hence one of Hegel's dialectics, also used by Tillich, goes from (1) One to (2) Many to (3) One = Many (or one composed of many). This is why Tillich insists that God is both infinite and finite, absolute and concrete. (He does not use "infinite" in its mathematical sense.)

The fifth paragraph of the present article says, "According to Tillich, Christ is the 'New Being.'" But Tillich knows "Christ" is a title ("Christos" is Greek for messiah), not a surname. And New Being is what comes about when a person becomes a humanist by espousing humanity as God. Tillich carefully distinguishes between "Jesus as the Christ," who is the supernatural Jesus of mythology, and the historical Jesus. Jesus as the Christ is Tillich's symbol for New Being because he is fully God and fully man, not part God and part man. God can be fully God (by definition) and fully man only when God is defined as man. A God composed of many beings--men and horses--could be "fully God" by definition but it would be only part man, not fully man.

Moving deeper into error, the author quotes Tillich as saying "He is . . . beyond essence and existence." The author thinks this means "God cannot logically be finite." But Tillich is actually alluding to the Hegelian dialectic that takes the form essence-existence-essence. The second essence, stage 3 (synthesis), lies beyond essence and existence (beyond thesis and antithesis). God undergoes self-realization as God when (1) potential essence merges with (2) actual existence to reach (3) actual essence. It is the actual essence (stage 3) that is beyond stages 1 and 2.

The assertion that Tillich's God "cannot logically be finite" pushes the author still deeper into error. Tillich's God, like Hegel's, is both infinite and finite, universal and particular, one composed of many. Humanity is infinite (not limited to just part of humanity) when viewed in its general aspect. Humanity is finite (individual persons) when it is viewed in its particular aspect. Humanity has an infinite side and a finite side. So it CAN logically be finite.

The "Theology" section's last paragraph is a jumble of confusion. The author is totally disoriented. I cannot imagine why you prefer a basically false article to one that is coherent, accurate, and well documented.

Political Views

I have no objection to the "Political Views" section, which follows the "Theology" section, so I left it untouched.

Critical Views

I incorporated the former "Critical Views" section into the "Theology" section because the material relates to Tillich's theology. I added several additional views because the original section did not provide a broad cross-section of opinion. Among my additions were two Catholics, three more Protestants, a Jew, a Unitarian, and three atheists. And I reorganized the interpretations in theist-metaphysician-atheist sequence.

I removed the material on C.S. Lewis's opinions partly because it lacked any citation but mainly because C.S. Lewis (a professor of English and a popularizer of conservative religion [he believed in Satan]) isn't qualified to express an opinion. It isn't just that he doesn't understand Hegel or the Hegelian terminology and concepts used by Tillich. The man was badly misinformed about just about everything outside his own world of literature. He rejected Darwin's theory of evolution. He thought that Tito was the king of Greece. (ref., A. N. Wilson's biography of Lewis) With dozens of opinions to choose from, we have to be a little discriminating. C.S. Lewis? Good grief!

Saul Tillich (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

good god. my comments were simple, my rationale for reversion simple, my request for cooperative editing simple. my criticism of inadequate inline references isn't abstract, it's fundamental wikipedia. please familiarize yourself with the appropraite guidelines - and look at a few random articles to see how proper citations are added to articles, a la this right here: There are vast stretches in the article you uploaded with lengthy discourse (much like the above) that appear to be your own interpretation of what you believe the 'correct' understanding of Tillich is to be, and without a single reference to them.

furthermore, please WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. you fling some accusations above with no basis for them. i've never added a word of content to this article - if you'd bothered to read this talk page before, you'd have read my concerns about the lack of sources, and that i noted i'm not qualified to write with any expertise on the matter, thus my reluctance to wade in. however, i did post a 'warning' that i was going to cull all the unsourced material from the article jan 1 - too bad other matters took precedence. but i think the time is ripe. removing all the unsourced commentary will leave a nice little one paragraph "bio", which can then be expanded. your additions would be welcome - but please don't dump your own entire article into the space. let other editors review the work as it progresses. articles are relatively organic on wikipedia. no single author will ever 'own' an article, and can't expect to either. make small additions. let other editors review them for quality, sources, formatting. i shouldn't have to be repeating myself on this matter. this is wikipedia. it is not anything else. there are guidelines and policies in place. there is the following line posted on the "Editing" page every time you edit: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.". heed that. don't expect to control an article. i'm exceedingly interested in improved accuracy of wikipedia, but a massive import of a new article is not the way to go about it. stripping this article down is the first order of business, which i'll do now. Anastrophe (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

REPLY:

You say that I "fling some accusations above with no basis for them." Then you add, "I've never added a word of content to this article." To begin with, I never said that your problem was adding "a word of content to this article." As for my accusations having no basis, I very thoroughly gave the basis for every accusation. Examples follow:

• I said your reference to "unsourced original material" and "entirely his own version" is demonstrably wrong. I replied with four paragraphs of material showing that both quoted phrases were wrong.

• I said "your insistence on a narrow style for in-line citations is far too doctrinaire." That summary statement was preceded by four numbered paragraphs supporting my point.

• Discussing Tillich's biography, I said "your actions strike me as just be bit heavy-handed." No basis? Here is the basis that I gave for that statement. "The [old] 'Biography' has no citations. I can't for the life of me figure out why you deleted my revision, which is detailed and gives detailed citations (at the end) in favor of a sketchy, poorly written bibliography with no citations." You still haven't explained why you substituted a biography with no citations for a much more complete biography with "improperly formatted" citations. Am I being unfair if I now accuse you of believing that form is more important than substance?

• I suggested that you used a "double standard" when you substituted the original "Bultmann's Influence" section for my "Influences" section.. No basis? I wrote: "You undid my accurate and well documented revision of the 'Influences' section in favor of a totally undocumented earlier section. Your only objection seems to be that the revision is too original ('entirely his own'). Yet you fail to delete 'Bultmann's Influence,' which is also original. Double standard?" If you can't understand how that displays a double standard, I'll elaborate. Standard for my "Influences" piece: Delete because it "original" (but true). Standard for the "Influences" piece you restored: Accept even though it is original (and false).

• For the "Theology" section, my accusation was this: "I cannot imagine why you prefer a basically false article to one that is coherent, accurate, and well documented." Regarding the coherence, accuracy, and documentation (apart from format) of my "Theology" material, that material speaks for itself. Regarding the falseness of the present "Theology" section, I went through it paragraph by paragraph and showed that the author's interpretations were a parade of errors. Your response was to reinstate the original false interpretation. And I'll now add that you again applied a double standard. The standard you applied to me called for using a different format for my numerous citations. The standard you applied to the original article, which had only one citation but six quotations, was that citations are desirable but not necessary. Once more, you put form ahead of substance. Actions speak louder than words: when you prefer false material with no citations (well, just one) to accurate material with wrongly formatted citations, then your only real concern is the format of the citations, not their presence or absence.

You also say "my rationale for reversion [was] simple, my request for cooperative editing simple." When simplicity consists of a combination of (1) a false accusation of "unsourced original research"--my material was neither unsourced nor original--(2) double standards, and (3) placing form ahead of substance, simplicity is no virtue.

"Cooperative editing," if it means cooperative writing, it totally impractical, and you should know it. Or, if "cooperative editing" merely means getting the footnotes in the shape you want them, then why aren't you willing to cooperate? All you have to do is reformat the first Tillich reference and the first non-Tillich and I can redo the rest. But that tiny bit of effort is too much for you. You'd rather have me examine embark on a time-consuming project: read a lot of Wikipedia articles with different in-line citation styles--some correct, some not--and guess which is your "Harvard style." Is it really asking too much when I ask YOU to be the one who cooperates by providing written examples instead of telling me to use "ref" between < and >? Is it too much to ask you to not only give examples but state your points clearly--for example, by saying "inclose your in-line citations in pointer marks (thus: <>) instead of parentheses, if that's what you mean by "<ref.>", and it may not be what you mean.

You then say "there are vast stretches in the article you uploaded with lengthy discourse . . . that appear to be your own interpretation of what you believe the 'correct' understanding of Tillich is to be, and without a single reference to them." That is completely false. My article is loaded with references, some general, some to specific quotations. Once I make it clear what my sources are, it is not necessary to keep repeating them on every line or even in every paragraph.

you say: " "Cooperative editing," if it means cooperative writing, it totally impractical, and you should know it. "

on that basis, i would invite you to find another venue for your writing, because you are clearly in the wrong place. this is wikipedia - not your blog, not your private website, not a place where you may do howsoever you desire, without any interference from other editors. if the above statement is how you truly feel, i sincerely invite you to start a blog somewhere. here, on wikipedia, cooperative editing is exactly what you'll have to live with - there is no alternative. furthermore, yes, you do need to produce your citations inline, and frequently. again, this is an encyclopedia, and there are concrete rules both of conduct and structure that apply to all editors - you cannot choose to ignore the standards on a whim. i'm sorry you don't like my "doctrinaire" approach. again, this is wikipedia - not your own private blog. material that doesn't conform to the standards required to be conformed to by policy will be deleted. if i were to somehow edit your personal blog and modify what you wrote, you'd have a legitimate complaint. this is not your personal blog. please show respect for your fellow editors by allowing them to participate in the editing process. please show respect for your fellow editors by not implying motive or intent (which is considered uncivil and does not assume good faith).

By "cooperative editing" I assumed you meant cooperative writing, which requires face-to-face contact. I see nothing "cooperative" about an approach that simply deletes everything the other party writes, whereas you could have easily made some sample corrections and allowed me to follow through with the remaining corrections.

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

also, please be sure to sign your comments. you may do so by typing four tildes. Anastrophe (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My comments have been signed, except for one set where wiki's computer would not accept my four ~'s. I put them two lines below my last paragraph, and then three lines below, retyping several times, but each time when I previewed the computer moved the four ~'s up onto my last line after the period. I finally gave up. Result: "unsigned" comment.

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

please note also that the article is now little more than a shell. all of the unsourced commentary has been removed. i have not removed the birth, death, and simple documentary details about his life, as they can easily be filled in with proper references in time. you're quite welcome to begin working with this new shell as a start, per my previous suggestions. Anastrophe (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

most recent addition

this strikes me either as making a WP:POINT in a disruptive fashion, but i'll withhold judgement on what the intent was for now. the following was added to the article, this is a verbatim excerpt:

Princeton philosopher Walter Kaufmann blasts Tillich: “''There is no nonsense whatever which may not be said to be symbolically true'', especially if its symbolic meaning is not stated.”^[3] Tillich’s basic statement “that God is being-itself . . . is surely neither a symbolic statement nor a nonsymbolic statement: it is no statement at all, it is a definition–and as it happens, a definition utterly at odds with the meaning of ‘God’ in probably more than 95 per cent of our religious tradition.”^[4] Continuing: “Tillich’s appeal depends on the ambiguity of ‘God’: he talks about being-itself, and his audience thinks of whatever they mean by ‘God.’ Some think of the God of Job and some of the God of Paul, some of the God of Calvin and some of their own idol, and many more think of nothing in particular but feel edified.”^[5] Tillich, in short, "redefines the crucial terms [of Christianity] and cultivates a kind of double-speak"^[6] designed to convey one meaning to the unsophisticated and an entirely different meaning–-nonsupernatural-–to more sophisticated readers and listeners. Thus does Tillich "say No in ways that sound like Yes"^[7].

as you can see, the material contains bogus reference tags - using <sup> tags to imitate real reference tags. i can't fathom the purpose of doing this, rather than using proper citations, but as it stands, it's the introduction of unsourced material to the article, and i've removed it. please do not continue adding material to the article in this fashion, it borders on vandalism to introduce unsourced material while masquerading it as sourced. Anastrophe (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

REPLY TO ANASTROPHE: Perhaps you display the courtesy of allowing me to finish what I'm doing before you start deleting. Perhaps you could also withhold judgments until the product you are judging is finished. I did not use "bogus reference tags," and neither did I use "unsourced material."

I gave five source citations, all of them truthful and accurate, for the paragraph on Kaufmann's views. Perhaps you missed them because you like to delete things before they are finished -- before the citations were added in this case. Perhaps you could spell out here the material you claim is unsourced.

I tried using the raised-superscript numbering you earlier said I should use but found that using the superscript key and brackets didn't work. I was in the process of changing these to in-text citations (<ref>citation<ref>) like those used successfully by an earlier reviser when you decided to all but the first sentence, which you left in out-of-context position. I didn't even get a chance to see if the endnotes came up where they belonged. My reference tags might accurately be described as amateurish -- I'm not a techie -- but I thought I was doing them in your preferred style, which is raised superscript with the reference number enclosed in brackets. Nowhere did I use cite. I initially used <^[1]>, intending to add the reference elsewhere. Those "bogus reference tags" print out exactly in the manner you requested earlier: superscript numbers enclosed in brackets. Nothing bogus there.

When that approach didn't work--the citations section of the article was missing the first two citations to other authors--I took a closer look at the earlier citations and switched to <ref>citation<ref>, expecting that the computer would transfer the citation to the references section of the article. But you didn't give me a chance to see it that solved the problem.

On what basis to you accuse me of "adding material" in a manner that constitutes "activity that borders on vandalism"? Kaufmann is a well known and widely respected philosopher who taught at a highly regarded university, Princeton. His views not only provide balance -- they clash with the views of those who claim (wrongly) that Tillich is a metaphysician -- but happen to be extremely accurate. It seems to me that you are the party who is guilty of vandalism. You are removing material (Kaufmann's views) that apparently runs counter to your own view that Tillich is a supernaturalist and a metaphysician. That is both censorship and vandalism.

Please now open the unfinished editing work and check my references for proper tagging. My revised reference tags differ from those used in the quoted material on Kaufmann's views that precedes your comments. If I still don't have the tags right you can easily correct them instead of deleting the whole paragraph. You talk about "cooperative editing." Well, how about cooperating instead of vandalizing?

In each of the five Kaufmann references I have given the book and page number(s). You apparently did not see them (hence "unsourced" because you did not wait until I was finished before you deleted my material. These sources don't need to be touched. All you need to do is correct the tags, if they are still wrong.

Saul Tillich (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

first, the basics. it is not necessary to include "REPLY TO ANASTROPHE". standard talk page format is to indent, which indicates to others that it is a reply. this is done by placing a colon at the beginning of the first sentence of your reply. two colons will indent further, and so on. if you use paragraph breaks within your reply, begin each paragraph with the same number of colons to maintain the same indent level.

to your commentary. i'm afraid i must insist that you cease immediately implying motive. this is a violation of assume good faith and also civility. if you persist, i'm afraid i'll have to move to initiating sanctions, as these are core policies of wikipedia. stating "You are removing material (Kaufmann's views) that apparently runs counter to your own view that Tillich is a supernaturalist and a metaphysician" is implying motive. you have no evidence to support such a claim. please stop. discuss the article and the material, not the person.

Perhaps I can clarify why I get the impression that your excuses for removing my material are manufactured. First, you make false accusations such as (a) my Kaufmann material was "unsourced," whereas in the single paragraph I put in five page references covering two Kaufmann books, and (b) I supposedly used "bogus reference tags," whereas I was using the very tabs you recommended--superscripted, bracketed numbers--for the endnotes I didn't get to type because you deleted my material before my edit was even completed. I now realize that there are two ways to get superscripted bracketed numbers, but my use of the wrong method hardly justifies your accusation of vandalism: you knew there were two ways to get the the superscripted numbers, but you chose to characterize my error as deliberate vandalism rather than an amateur's mistake. And then you chose to accuse me of using "bogus reference tags." That's your idea of "civility"?

Second, your "borders on vandalism" accusation clearly impugns my motives for trying to edit this article, whereas it should be apparent to any intelligent observer that the editing problems I'm having result from inexperience, not malice. The pot seems to be calling the kettle black when that "vandalism" accusation comes from a party who can't imagine why his motives were questioned.

Third, we have that double standard -- applied repeatedly. You have several times now removed material you claimed was "unsourced"--it was actually adequately sourced--or else improperly sourced in a technical sense, but you did not apply any sourcing standard at all to the material you restored. (a) The old "theology" section was full of unsourced quotations (whereas all of my quotations were sourced), yet you let that section stand for over three months after issuing a warning; I got no warning, just instant removal. (b) My more complete revised biography was heavily sourced--at the end, where the sources would not interrupt the reading--but you deleted it and replaced it with an inferior biography that, as I recall, had either one source or none. Then when I expanded the introduction by two sentences with the sort of basic information that you will not find sourced in other introductions, you deleted those sentences, implicitly because they had no sources. Again, the double standard": what is unacceptable from me is acceptable from someone else. And you wonder why my suspicions were aroused. (c) My bibliographical references were deleted by you and replaced with the old bibliography that is technically deficient in five ways--in violation of the very wiki standards you claim to be upholding. (I have spelled out the five formatting errors at the top the bibliography.) My minor formatting violations are unacceptable, but you have been perfectly willing to accept major violations by others.

Fourth, you have implicitly -- not explicitly -- made the false claim than the method of in-line citations I used was unacceptable not just because I wasn't using the Harvard style but because, for you, parenthetical citations in any style are unacceptable. You insist on the endnote style, the style that uses superscripted numbers.

i'm happy to assist users who are unfamiliar with the basics; however, i am not a personal tutor, and i expect users to take responsibility for their own instruction once pointed in the right direction. above, i provided a canonical example of embedding a proper inline citation into the text. the citation linked to the wikipedia page were templates for dozens and dozens of different content-type citations can be found. before editing further, please visit those pages and familiarize yourself with how it's done. before editing in article space further, please consider using the sandbox instead, or creating your own sandbox pages to experiment with. experimenting within article space is discouraged, because it is disruptive to the public article.

I have visited those pages and have found the instructions unclear. Examples are provided without explanation, both there and in your own posts. For example, does "ref" placed between two arrowheads mean that the letters ref should be typed between the two arrowheads, or does it mean that you should spell out the full author-date-publisher reference between the arrowheads? Another example: "Inline author-date citations can be generated . . . using ([[#CITEREF|]]) templates. What does does that accomplish? I can generate author-date citations simply by typing the parentheses myself, thus: "(Tillich 1963, p. 72"). "Generated" apparently means something other than generating the parentheses, but what does it mean? Specifically, what is "generated"? Meanwhile, the inline "generated" applies "only if the full reference uses the }}citation{{. (I deliberately put those marks backwards to avoid their corrupting what I'm writing.) What on earth does "applies" mean? If I type an inline Harvard citation (author surname-date-page) and put a full reference under "References," the "References" citation certainly applies to (gives full information on) the inline citation regardless of whether the full citation is enclosed in double superbrackets elsewhere. So what does the superbracketing the full references in the "References" section accomplish?

Now look in the rectangular box 2/3 of the way down on page 5 (of 10) of Wiki's "Citing Sources" article. Do you see that vertical bar in front of the second mention of "Miller"? My keyboard has no vertical bar, so how am I supposed to insert the vertical bar, without which the wiki procedure cannot be implemented?

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

i have never suggested that you use "raised superscript numbering". there is perhaps too much of a disconnect between your ability to edit the material and my recommendations. i apologize if that's the case, but then i must refer you back to the paragraph immediately preceding this - if you have poor editing skills, then you must hold your edits in reserve, either in the sandbox - or perhaps more usefully here on the talk page - before committing them to the public article.

Playing in the sandbox isn't going to answer my questions, and it certainly isn't going to put a vertical bar on my keyboard. And if you didn't mean to imply that I should use "raised superscript numbering," then why didn't you simply correct just one of my inline (parenthetical) references and ask me to correct the rest in the same fashion. Your decision to strike everything rather that display the sort of cooperation you overtly espouse sure gave me the impression that inline references were verboten. Are you now willing to accept them, provided they are properly done?

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

now i'm going to go back on what i said, and provide some personal tutoring. i dislike being accused of being unhelpful; particularly when i am routinely helpful with other editors. so:

here is an example of an inline citation - this is the material i used previously to embed a reference, but i'm supplying it here in cleartext, unformatted by the wiki software.

<ref>

I have absolutely no idea what that is supposed to mean. Does the full reference get inserted in place of "ref" (between the arrowheads)? If not, where does it go: the reference, whether abbreviated or full, has to go somewhere. What does the tacked-on "br" do? Am I supposed to substitute something for "br," or is it an instruction to the computer?

Does the above instruction go in the text or under "References"?

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

{{cite web
| url = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Citation_templates
| title = Citation templates
| accessdate = 2008-01-18
}}</ref>

Your three instructions that precede the last one contain those vertical bars (after "nowiki " placed between arrowheads. My keyboard has no vertical bar. Therefore I can't use those instructions and cannot use the procedures you want me to use.

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

all keyboards manufactured in about the last 20 years have a vertical bar character available. if your keyboard lacks one, then it is most assuredly time to invest in a new one. good quality keyboards can be acquired for only a few dollars on ebay. that said, i provide a copy of the standard webcite text on my user page, where you can always just copy and paste them into an article as needed. that's why i have them there. and as before, the easiest way to sort out your difficulties understanding how to correctly add citations can be done by simply clicking the edit button on an existing article with such citations, and review how they appear there. Anastrophe (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

the included lines are the absolute bare minimum allowed for a "web" citation; there are many more lines of information that can be included however, and citations for other materials - books, journals, etc - have different requirements. those requirements can be found at that selfsame referenced page - the Citation templates page. this style is by far the most prevalent, common style of referencing on wikipedia. you may confirm that by simply clicking the 'random article' link in the column on the left and having a look.

Since I can't use those highly technical procedures, what is wrong with my using the "Harvard referencing" procedure (the second of three optional procedures) that begins on the bottom of page 4 of "Citing Sources." That procedure is easy to apply. I simply use parentheses (typed: no coding) to enclose the surname-date-page reference, then put the full reference (arranged in author-date sequence) in the "References" list. What could be simpler? What's your objection to that wiki-approved procedure?

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that you personally will not accept references that are not placed immediately after the quotation, instead of (Chicago-approved style) at the end of the sentence, where the citation does not interrupt the chain of thought. Yet "Citing Sources" says (on p. 6 under the "Where to place ref tags heading) this: "Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence, while others are referenced at the end. . . . Many editors [note the implied option] put the reference tags after punctuation (except dashes) [the punctuation may not immediately follow the quotation], as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style." In other words, wiki is willing to defer to personal preference on where the references go.

Regarding where the parenthetical reference should go, Chicago (15th ed, para. 11.79) actually says this: "A parenthetical reference need not immediately follow the quotation as long as it is clear what it belongs to (italics added).

there are fundamental editing principles and guidelines here. you need to take the time to familiarize yourself with them. i'm sorry if you don't like having your material removed. but leaving the article in a fractured state while you experiment is simply not acceptable.

I fail to see how my adding an excellent bibliography, complete with references at the end where they don't interrupt, creates a more "fractured" article than one with no bibliography at all. You implicitly want every single line of the biography referenced, because every single line of any biography contains one or more facts. I suggest that you read several moderately long wiki biographies and see how many have been accepted without references on every line. You will find few references -- sometimes none -- in any of those biographies. Biographies by their nature are tortured by overreferencing. I don't object to having references that cover every line (my references covered every line), but the references do not belong ON every line. To refresh your memory, here is the "Sources" material that I provided and you found unacceptable -- even though you were willing to accept (and restored) the original biography that had a single footnote (I think it covered Tillich's becoming a chaplain in WWI). My sources:

Sources: Armbruster, xiii (chronology); Tillich, “Autobiographical Reflections,” in Kegley & Bretall, 3-21; Tillich, Boundary, 13-36; Tillich, Absolutes, 23-54 (autobiographical essay); Hopper, 15-34; May, 22, 40; Kegley & Bretall, ix-x; Pauk & Pauk, 1-290, esp. 1, 5-6, 10, 13, 52, 79-80, 85-86, 96, 160, 225, 237, 247-48, 283, 287-90.

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, the article is bad - very bad - as it stands. your attempts at adding sourced material are appreciated, but, since you are apparently new to editing wikipedia, you would do better to compose your proposed additions and post them to the talk page first. there, the most basic issues can be ironed out with your fellow editor's assistance, before they are published to the public article. Anastrophe (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion of bibliography

the following was placed within the public article - completely inappropriate, as commentary about the article and edits belongs on the talk page, not within the article itself! i am republishing the comments here where they can be discussed properly.

Quote:

This bibliography is improperly formatted--in several ways. First, a bibliography, in contrast to a set of endnotes, is always arranged alphabetically by author. Second, the author belongs at the beginning of each entry. In all but the last three works below no author is given, although the author happens to be Tillich. Third, in a bibliography (contrasted with endnotes and in-line citations), the author's name should be given last name first (so that the entries can be alphabetized). Fourth, when there are multiple entries for a given author, the second and any subsequent entries for that author should substitute three hyphens (---) for the author's name. Fifth, again for multiple entries for a given author, the entries for that author are normally alphabetized by title, with the and an ignored when the first word of the title. It is also permissable to arrange these entries (by the same author) chronologically.

Beyond format, the last entry has an incorrect author citation. There are two authors--Wilhelm & Marion Pauck--not just Wilhelm Pauck. The third-from-last book has no date.

This bibliography will be removed if the improper format is not corrected by April 30, 2008.

end quote.

now, regarding the commentary. perhaps you have misconstrued my comments on the talk page here where i discussed that i would be removing all unsourced material on or after a certain date. that statement was based on wikipedia policy, which is very firm that unsourced material may be challenged and removed. it does not however apply to the formatting within the article, with the exception of badly broken wiki formatting, which can disrupt the readability of the article. it is inappropriate to state - never mind within the actual public article space! - that you're going to arbitrarily remove the bibliography because of improper formatting. you may work with your fellow editors to fix the formatting, but wholesale removal would be inappropriate.Anastrophe (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you now object to is what you yourself essentially did with earlier material. The difference is that you used a boxed-in wiki format that I lack the technical expertise to employ. And you were less specific in your objections. You did, however, say in that box that the material would be removed if citations were not provided by a certain date (or was it within a certain length of time?). What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I accept your clarification that wiki removal policy does not apply to format (only to lack of sourcing) where formal removal warnings are used -- this wasn't clear to me -- but in practice you have followed the very policy that you now object to: you have removed what you consider to be improperly formatted material, and without even a warning!

If you can do that, why can't I? The present bibliography is an abomination in terms of format. Why do you tolerate it while rejecting relatively petty things in my own format, which did not follow the Harvard style? Are you aware that the bibliography doesn't follow the Harvard style either? For goodness sake, most of the entries don't even list an author! Those that do don't put the author first! And they don't put the author last-name-first, to facilitate alphabetizing and look-up by readers. And the entries aren't alphabetized at all, which makes it very hard for a reader to find the correct full reference. And for the Tillich entries, the entries are "arranged" randomly -- neither chronologically nor alphabetically by title. And the dates are in parenthesis, contrary to Harvard style. The formatting errors go on and on. But they are okay with you. Whereas one of my mistakes was to write "(surname, p. 7)" instead of including the date: "(surname 1965, p. 7)."

Surely you can see why I think you are using a double standard. And I see nothing "uncivil" about the accusation. I have documented it well.

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tillich

i guess it needs to be asked at this point, since it's sort of been hanging there: User:Saul Tillich, are you related to the subject of this article, Paul Tillich? Anastrophe (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

For clues, see 1 Sam. 28, esp. verses 13-14. Transpose the two names that begin with S.

Now, are you related to Anastasia Apostrophe?

Hmmm. I just figured out that you're supposed to put those indent colons in front of the tildes too; otherwise they don't attach properly to the preceding text.

Saul Tillich (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see my last contribution is dated 3:56 AM tomorrow morning. Is this site operating on Greenwich mean time?

i'll ask again: are you related to Paul Tillich? please answer either in the affirmative or the negative. this is an extremely important question. Anastrophe (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

and again once more, since you've chosen to respond above to comments from more than a year and a half old, but not to respond here: this is a very serious question. guessing games are an inappropriate response. it's a simple question that can be responded to with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. please respond. Anastrophe (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No

Saul Tillich (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

contributions

there's been an enormous amount of verbiage expended in response to my reversion of the wholesale replacement of the tillich biography with one editor's work. i'd like to refocus again on what i said early on: post portions here on the talk page. let other editors review and discuss it. if you're feeling bold, post a portion into the main article, and we can still discuss it. try using referencing as is found in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia. i welcome better content for this article - i only ask that it be properly sourced (per policy), properly formatted (per policy), written from a neutral point of view (per policy), and not contain original research (per policy). that's not an accusation, it's a request. post a paragraph. post a section. let's have a look at it. it will probably 'fly' with only a few improvements to formatting and citation. again, i and i'm sure other editors will welcome better content for this article. jumping from the frying pan into the fire however doesn't improve the article. neither does throwing the baby out with the bathwater, while i'm in mind of cliches. give other editors an opportunity to review wholey new content. don't post a massive new version, expecting other editors to then laboriously work their way through a massive amount of what may not be acceptable in this consensus driven medium. that's all i ask. it is not unreasonable in the least. Anastrophe (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In some respects, what you ask for IS unreasonable. Take the bibliographies that you deleted. Your excuse was that they had too few references within the text, only two in the original version if I recall correctly. Compare that with the wiki biographies of other prominent theologians and religious writers, which have rightly been allowed to stand.

• RUDOLF BULTMAN -- This 6-paragraph biography has two unsourced quotations, including a block quotation, and has only one reference altogether (at the very end).
• REIHNOLD NIEBUHR -- This 7-paragraph bio has just 1 ref, which is to a quotation. None of the many facts in the bio is referenced (and I don't think that referencing every fact is needed).
• DIETRICH BONHOEFFER -- This 4-long-paragraphs bio has no references.
• KARL BARTH -- This 3-paragraph bio has just one reference (for a quotation).
• THOMAS AQUINAS -- This exceedingly long biography is a referencing disaster, yet it has been allowed to stand. It has lots of footnotes, 19 of them, but there are two unsourced quotations, freakish footnote numbering, and a non-Harvard-style set of footnotes. The footnote numbering, shown here in sequence, runs thus: 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-3-4-3-5-4-4-3-4-4-6. Instead of one footnote per note, there is one footnote per number -- and only one page reference per number, which raises lots of suspicion. Isn't that a whole lot worse than the referencing in the deleted Tillich biographies?
• HARRY EMERSON FOSDICK -- This very long biography has just two footnotes, and there are two unsourced quotations.

If you were to apply the same standards to these biographies that you applied to the Tillich biographies, you would delete every one of them -- and I infer that they all (except possibly Fosdick) lie within the wiki territory you have carved out for yourself. Do you intend to delete these biographies? If not, why not?

I think you need to realize that the same reference standards cannot be applied to all types of writing. An implicit requirement that every single fact -- and that means every single line -- of a biography be referenced is simply absurd. Not quite so absurd, but still absurd, is a requirement that every third or fourth line (on average), including at least one line per paragraph, be referenced. The result of that approach is simply arbitrary referencing, akin to flipping a coin to decide what gets referenced. For a biography, the preferred approach is to have a "SOURCES" paragraph at the beginning or at the end. That way a published biography, such as the Pauk & Pauk biography of Tillich, can cover a lot of ground and can be augmented by other biographical material such as Tillich's own autobiographical essays.

You write,"try using referencing as is found in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia." Why? Most wiki articles seem to use footnotes, but any "footnotes only" requirement that you may or may not intend to impose and enforce is clearly contrary to wiki policy. Worse, it discriminates against contributors (like myself) who don't understand the poorly explained wiki footnote coding system. Wiki encourages the use of Harvard-style in-line (parenthetical) references, from which style I admit to have deviated in the past through ignorance of the Harvard style. I now know what the Harvard style (surname-date-page) is and intend to use it.

For the third time you write that contributions should "not contain original research." I have refuted that false charge twice, yet you continue to post your baseless insinuation that interpreting Tillich's God as humanity is an original interpretation. I have twice pointed out that this interpretation is 38 years old, going back to Wheat (1970) and that parts of it dealing with Tillich's atheism and being (like Paul) "all things to all men" is 47 years old, going back to Kaufmann (1963), not to mention Tillich's own confessions in Shaking the Foundations (1948), written 60 years ago. You are too quick to assume that interpretations you are not personally familiar with is "original research."

I am now going to replace the horribly formatted "References" section with a correctly formatted (Harvard style) list of references. Before you hastily delete it, please be aware of three things. First, although my placing book titles in italics is not the roman-type-enclosed-in-quotation-marks style shown in the 10-page wiki "Citing Sources" article (Miller example, bottom of page 6 and middle of page 6), italics is the correct Harvard style for books shown in both the separate wiki "Harvard referencing" article and at the following website: http://www.tvu.ac.uk/lrs/guides/harvard.html . Second, although there is presently no text, hence no references contained in text, these references will be available, already formatted, when the text is introduced as the next step. Third, even though this new reference list does not yet support preceding text, it remains useful for anyone doing research on Tillich and looking for sources.

Saul Tillich (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

you intentionally modified my comments to change the meaning. that is intolerable. i have never modified a single word of yours on these talk pages. it is a violation of wikipedia policy to modify another user's comments, yet you feel unconstrained in changing mine. i've tried to remain civil, but your incivility is unacceptable. my good faith is virtually spent. feel free to modify the article as you see fit. if your contributions don't conform to policy, i'll revert them. simple. it's policy, it applies to 'all editors. i'm through listening to these excruciating justifications for your unwillingness to edit cooperatively and to conform to wikipedia policy. i tried to extend an olive branch, offering suggestions for how we could get past this impasse, but frankly i'm going blind plowing through the miles of rhetoric you employ in response to simple discourse. i tried to reach some middle ground, you reject it, then once again impugn my character and imply motive where you have absolutely and positively ZERO basis to even suggest what my motive is. i'm finished trying to communicate with you - it's a waste of time since no fruit is borne from it, only more rhetoric. bon chance. Anastrophe (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

gymnasium

" In 1898 Tillich was sent to Königsberg to begin gymnasium in 1901. At Königsberg he lived in a boarding house and experienced loneliness that he sought to overcome by reading the Bible.

In 1900, Tillich’s father was called to an important position in Berlin. The family moved there, Tillich switched to a Berlin gymnasium in 1901, and in 1904 he graduated from gymnasium. "

these dates don't match up. please fix. Anastrophe (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The last two words in the sentence beginning "In 1898" are a typo; they shouldn't be there. They are from the sentence beginning "The family."

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

probably original research

this paragraph doesn't have a single citation in it. who is saying this stuff?

But the God of theism has always been conceived as a being, one being, and this God has always been assumed to exist alongside or above others, sharing their physical universe. Theism’s God is a rational, self-conscious, omniscient, supernatural being who created the universe, takes an interest in human affairs, and sometimes intervenes in our world in response to prayer, religious practices, pleasure or displeasure concerning human behavior, and general concern about human beings, what they do, their well being, and their religious activities or lack of same. Although early Jews and early Christians regarded God as anthropomorphic (a manlike being with arms, legs, and a head who created man in his own image), most educated Christians nowadays think of the God of theism as a spirit–-formless, invisible, lacking physical substance or any other physical characteristics such as heat, and perhaps not even spatially localized. Even this spirit God is a being in the sense of (a) being a “personal God” with whom a personal relationship can be established through prayer, worship, and obedience and (b) displaying anthropopathism-–human feelings and emotions such as love, anger, pleasure and displeasure, approval and disapproval, and wants (e.g., obedience of his divine laws). Yet Tillich says God is not such a being. “God is . . . not a being.” That means Tillich rejects the God of theism.

Anastrophe (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all elementary stuff, so well known and widely understood that no citation is required. God’s early conception as an anthropomorphic being is well known and comes straight from Genesis: “God created man in his own image” (Gen. 1:27). Man has arms, legs, a head, and a face; so God's image (according to Genesis) must also have arms, legs, a head, and a face. In Genesis 32:24-32, “a man wrestled with” Jacob, after which Jacob said “I have seen God face to face.”

In Exodus 4:24, God is angry at Moses because Moses is not circumcised: “At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him [Moses] and sought to kill him.”

Anthropomorphism can also be found in the Apostles’ Creed, where Jesus “sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,” which implies that God is sitting at Jesus’s left on a throne in heaven, which in turn implies that God is a manlike being who can sit.

Theophile James Meek, in his book Hebrew Origins, writes that Yahweh “became a personal god, and was thought of in human terms, with form, voice, thoughts, emotions, and everything else quite after the order of man” (p.102).

A scholarly Jewish website has this statement: “Many verses in the Bible reflect a belief in an anthropomorphic God; in other words, the Lord has a body which has a head, limbs, and so forth. This concept is attested in the whole Bible both explicitly and implicitly. It is clear from early sources that in the biblical period, laymen and prophets believed that God had a figure which can be seen and described.”

The Wikipedia article on “God” says that Deism “holds that God is wholly transcendent: God exists, but does not intervene in the world beyond what was necessary to create it. In this view, God is not anthropomorphic.” The implication is that theism’s God, in contrast to deism’s, is at least sometimes “anthropomorphic.”

The same article has a picture of Michelangelo’s painting of God on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel. Sure looks anthropomorphic to me.

As for God’s nowadays being conceived by many persons as a nonanthropomorphic spirit without physical substance (i.e., noncorporeal), I refer you again to Wikipedia’s article on “God,” which has this clause: “God has also been conceived as being incorporeal.”

Here is an excerpt from a Cambridge University Press publication:

AUGUSTINE AND THE CORPOREALITY OF GOD

Carl W. Griffin a1 and David L. Paulsen

Brigham Young University

“It has been recognized by at least some scholars that many early Christians, and not only the simpliciores, believed God to be corporeal (materially embodied) or anthropomorphic (humanlike in form), as some biblical narratives portray him. Likewise certain trajectories of Christian mysticism, under the influence of Jewish kabod speculation, maintained that the pinnacle of mystic ascent was the contemplation of the body of God. Among theologians there was also a stoicizing school, prominently represented in Tertullian, who held that God was corpus, even if not anthropomorphic. All of this stands in stark contrast with that Christian theology which developed, primarily under the influence of Platonism, a nonanthropomorphic and incorporeal conception of God that has come to dominate all subsequent theology and philosophy. It is difficult for moderns to transcend these subsequent norms and recognize among early Christians some quite different theological conceptions, or to do so without dismissing them as crude and primitive notions and, hence, as isolated aberrations."

But why bring up more sources and evidence on this point. Ask yourself: what do I and my friends and colleagues believe about God? Do you believe (or if you don’t believe in God, do you perceive most of the educated, intelligent believers around you as believing) that God has arms, legs, a head, and a face? Or do you instead think of God as a noncorporeal spirit, perhaps not even spatially localized? I can tell you right now that none of my churchgoing friends, most of whom have graduate degrees, think of God as anything but a spirit.

I wonder if your "who is saying this stuff?" query also refers to this sentence: "Theism’s God is a rational, self-conscious, omniscient, supernatural being who created the universe, takes an interest in human affairs, and sometimes intervenes in our world in response to prayer, religious practices, pleasure or displeasure concerning human behavior, and general concern about human beings." Maybe you are not questioning this particular line. But if you are, do you really think it necessary to cite sources for a statement that God is rational? self-conscious (aware of his own existence)? omniscient (that fact is in the Wiki article on God)? a supernatural being? takes an interest in human affairs (if he didn't he'd be the God of deism, not theism)? is believed to sometimes intervene in our world in response to prayer (if people don't believe this, why do they pray?)? is pleased or displeased by certain human behavior (if not, what are Christian salvation and divine decisions about whether or not to answer prayers all about)?

Saul Tillich (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

please don't change section titles. leave section titles as the original author started them. i am disinterested in plowing through more of your rhetoric. material in this encyclopedia must be sourced. it must be written so that a general audience can find out where the ideas come from. synthesis and original research are forbidden by wikipedia policy. we don't base material in the encyclopedia upon what "my friends and colleagues believe about God", we base it upon what reliable sources have to say about it. you are entering your own interpretation of what Tillich means with a bald statement that "That means Tillich rejects the God of theism". theism does not preclude believing in a non-corporeal god. Anastrophe (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You write, "Theism does not preclude believing in a non-corporeal god," and you seem to think you are refuting something I said. But I said the same thing: "Although early Jews and early Christians regarded God as anthropomorphic (a manlike being with arms, legs, and a head who created man in his own image), most educated Christians nowadays think of the God of theism as a spirit–-formless, invisible, lacking physical substance or any other physical characteristics such as heat, and perhaps not even spatially localized." To call this my own interpretation is absurd. As I said, this is elementary knowledge possessed by just about every educated person who is informed about religion.

Nothing in the article is based on what you and your friends believe. I was merely making the point that God's being conceived nowadays as nonanthropomorphic, a spirit, is such a widely recognized conception that it requires no documentation. How can you call this an "original interpretation" when you yourself just wrote: "Theism does not preclude believing in a non-corporeal god"--the very point you are now challenging. On what basis to you declare "original" either the statement that (1) God used to be, and sometimes still is, regarded as an anthropomorphic being--the being who created man in his own image--or the statement that (2) God nowadays is generally conceived as nonanthropomorphic, noncorporeal, a spirit?

Please spell out carefully and specifically exactly what in the paragraph that began this heading you think is "original." For example, is it "original" or "original research" to point out that God is regarded as a being?

Saul Tillich (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

what is written on the talk page is not held to the same requirements as what is in the published article. i am using a technical term which you should familiarize yourself with - see WP:OR and the subpage within it, WP:SYN. Anastrophe (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The "original research" is in giving your own summary and interpretation of what Tillich's beliefs should be considered to be, based on what seems to be original argument on your part and quoting directly of the source material, rather than summaries of existing published analyses by third-party biographers and historians who have written on Tillich.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Wiki policy calls for citing the original sources of quotations whenever possible, rather than citing secondary sources in which certain quotations appear. Accordingly, I have cited the books by Tillich in which the quotations originally appeared. That hardly supports your assertion that mine is "original argument." The Tillich quotations all appear in Wheat's book and are used by Wheat to support the conclusions in the Wiki article. Moreover, I have provided general references to pages and page spreads in Wheat's book where the quotations appear; any suggestion on your part that every quotation should give both a primary and a secondary source is unrealistic and is certainly not Wiki policy.

Saul Tillich (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact you even seem to be arguing against what "some commentators" have said (though without naming them), and Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. Some parts are fine---the part where you quote what Hook and Wheat say about Tillich's philosophy, for example. But much of the "Antisupernaturalism" section has no such citations (citations to Tillich himself, or to other primary sources such as the Bible, don't count). See WP:SYN for more on the policy on this. --Delirium (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added additional citations to both "Influences" and "Antisupernaturalism" to demonstrate that this is not original research or original conclusions.

Saul Tillich (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Another example, in the Influences section:

Extremely close parallels exist between Tillich’s thought and that of four of those German philosophers: Kant, Hegel, Schelling, and Marx. These parallels permit no reasonable doubt' ... Who says?

Wheat says. I have added the citation.

Saul Tillich (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The combined indexes of the three volumes of Tillich’s Systematic Theology plus his five other books that have indexes contain 25 references to Schelling, 26 to Marx, 51 to Kant, and 70 to Hegel. Who did this analysis?

Here your point is correct: this was an original set of counts. I have deleted the counts of references to the German philosophers.

Saul Tillich (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If the answer isn't some third-party source, they're original research. Personally, I think all three theological sections - Influences, Antisupernaturalism and Theology - look largely OR.

As I pointed out earlier in the talk section, nothing in any of the sections is original. Mostly the material is from Wheat, but in the Influences section Tucker (cited) is an important source, and Tillich's rejection of supernaturalism has support not only from Wheat but from Kaufmann, MacIntyre, and Hook, all of whom have pointed to Tillich's atheism.

Saul Tillich (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And, sorry - the article c. September 2007 wasn't brilliant, but Saul Tillich's edits are emphatically not improving it. These sections are just so waffly and reeking of personal synthesis that I can't see how to improve them except by scrapping them and restarting using straightforward third-party sources like Encyclopedia Britannica or Who's Who in the Twentieth Century. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your approach calls for false interpretations that consider Tillich to be a supernaturalist of one sort or another. The evidence that he is not a supernaturalist and that his God is humanity is conclusive. The unwillingness of people to believe that Tillich was an atheist and that his God is humanity seems to be based largely on the fact that Tillich was widely accepted as one of America's two leading Protestant theologians--because very few people recognized that he was saying No in ways that sounded like Yes (and because hardly anyone could understand his Hegelian terminology and his Hegelian dialectics). In other words, Tillich's use of "double-speak" (Kaufmann) mislead most people, convincing them that old theological concepts were being taken literally whereas Tillich was using them symbolically, giving them new meanings. People are simply unwilling to even consider the possibility that a highly regarded theologican could have been an atheist: their minds are closed. Secondarily, it seems that hardly any of his interpreters (many of whom wrote before Wheat's 1970 analysis) have read Wheat's book: check the bibliographies in the other books and articles.

Your use of the word "waffly" is inappropriate. The verb "waffle" is usually used in reference to politicians and implies fence-straddling or jumping around in the positions a politician takes on certain issues. I see no evidence of waffling in the article; "waffly" strikes me as loose talk and name-calling. Perhaps the additional citations will demonstrate that the article is not "personal synthesis." If you see a need for still more citations demonstrating that the conclusions are not "personal" or "original," specify where they are needed.

Saul Tillich (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We should still not present the results as our conclusions, spoken in Wikipedia's voice, but as a summary of the arguments that have happened between other people. We certainly shouldn't take sides on which side is right either! More along the lines of "So-and-so thinks this; but Wheat (1970) argues that this other thing." ... not "Although so-and-so incorrectly thinks this, it is clearly the case that this other thing (Wheat 1970)"---it's never appropriate for Wikipedia articles to make arguments in their own voice like that. ---Delirium (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP applies. If the majority view is not that Tillich was an atheist, we are obliged to report it as such, not write an exposition filtering that through a minority viewpoint. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Leonard F. Wheat is an economist for the department of commerce (another title he authored is "State Per-Capita Income Change Since 1950: Sharecropping's Collapse and Other Causes of Convergence"), self-professed atheist, and loathes christianity and theology. he labels Tillich's theology variously as "a sham", and "semantic hocus-pocus" - characterizations puzzlingly left out of the article by user saul tillich. Wheat could appropriately be used as a critic of Tillich, but certainly not an interpreter, and certainly not as representative of mainstream consensus on Tillich - at best, his views of Tillich could be considered fringe. Frankly, he's not qualified to interpret Tillich, unless there's some hidden subtext in Tillich that addresses The Effect of Modern Highways on Urban Manufacturing Growth - another trailblazing theological analysis by Wheat. Anastrophe (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My strong temptation is to follow WP:BOLD and delete these sections. However, I've set up a Request for Comment to get wider opinion first. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to discredit the article’s analysis through resort to ad hominem argument and sarcasm directed at my primary source (Wheat) is shameful, not to mention poorly reasoned. Instead of refuting the analysis, you attack the person. You argue that Wheat is unqualified to interpret Tillich because he is an economist and an atheist. Your clear implication is that only people with divinity school training – and divinity school beliefs – are qualified to write about and interpret religion and theology.

First, a minor matter. Whereas your paragraph apparently uses as its sources the book jacket’s minibiography and the Amazon.com list of books by Wheat, you “puzzlingly left out” (your words) his most relevant credentials: he has a PhD from Harvard University in political economy and government (economics and political science); he has written, according to Amazon, eight scholarly books in four fields (economics, theology, film, and literature); and his Tillich book was published by a highly regarded university press, Johns Hopkins, where it undoubtedly passed peer review before being published. I would conclude that Wheat has a very high IQ and a keen analytical mind; has read widely; is well informed in many areas, including religion; understands Hegel (political thought) and Marx (economic thought); and – for reasons I’ll get to in a moment – is far better qualified to write about Tillichian dialectics than almost any divinity school graduate.

Your implicit belief that only divinity school graduates are qualified to write about theology is incredibly naive. To begin with, the most insightful readings of Tillich’s theology have all come from non-divinity-school authors: Princeton philosopher Walter Kaufmann, British philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, New York University philosopher Sidney Hook, and Wheat. If you were to take the trouble to skim through Kaufmann’s two books on religion – The Faith of a Heretic and Critique of Religion and Philosophy – you would find that Kaufmann is extremely well informed on both religion in general and theology in particular, yet he never attended divinity school and is in fact an atheist. Hook and Wheat are also atheists. (MacIntyre is Roman Catholic.)

Your notion (again implicit) that people who lack divinity school training – economists, philosophers, scientists, accountants -- cannot achieve expertise in religion or theology boggles the mind. The most thorough study of the history of religion, Man and His Gods, was written by a professor of physiology, Homer Smith. An outstanding book explaining the Bible, The Bible and the Common Reader, was written by a professor of English literature, Mary Ellen Chase. I invite you to peruse three recent books by non-divinity-school atheists: The End of Faith, by Sam Harris, doctoral candidate in neuroscience; The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, the British biologist and ethnologist; and Why Darwin Matters, by Michael Shermer, who has a PhD in the history of science. These authors are all atheists, but regardless of whether we agree with their views on religion (I strongly agree with Shermer’s views on evolution), it is impossible not to recognize that they understand religion and religious teachings. For that matter, literally millions of intelligent laymen (even some not-so-intelligent ones) are thoroughly conversant with the beliefs and doctrines of Christianity; in some cases they are also familiar with the origins and history of these beliefs. What is it that makes you think a natural scientist, a social scientist, or someone with a degree in the humanities can’t understand or interpret theology?

I return now to your disparaging remarks implying that economists can’t understand theology. Tillich’s thought is dialectical, in the Hegelian-Marxian sense of the term (not the Barthian sense). It is dialectical through and through. Nobody is going to understand Tillich, and nobody is qualified to write about his theology, who does not understand (a) the thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics of Hegel and Marx, (b) the related concepts of separation-and-return and estrangement (man’s estrangement from himself), and (c) dialectical terminology (e.g., essence and existence, estrangement and reconciliation, finite and infinite, universality and particularity, unconscious [a.k.a. “dreaming innocence”] and conscious, and affirmation-negation-negation of the negation). Wheat’s double degree suggests that he has studied both political thought (Hegel) and economic thought (Marx); a reading of his book confirms that this is true. His book also shows that he is well informed about Christianity, not that this achievement is anything remarkable.

I know of no other author of a book or article dealing with Tillich’s thought whose credentials for interpreting Tillich are even nearly as good. Philosophy is the only discipline that can equal political science or economics as a training ground for Hegelian dialectics. Contrary to what you seem to believe, philosophy, political science, and economics are the only disciplines that can provide the foundation knowledge of dialectics required for interpreting Tillich. Knowledge of the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, Barth, and Bultmann – divinity school knowledge – is of absolutely no value for interpreting Tillich. Every effort by a person trained in theology to interpret Tillich has failed because the author could not recognize Tillich’s dialectical formulations and could not understand his dialectical terminology.

I am puzzled by why you think Wheat’s labeling Tillich’s theology “a sham” containing “semantic hocus-pocus” disqualifies him. Tillich’s atheism certainly means that his theology, in which Tillich tries to give all but his most sophisticated readers the impression that his God above God is supernatural, is a sham. A sham is “something false . . . that is purported to be genuine.” Why does saying so disqualify Wheat as an interpreter? And why do you imply that using the “sham” label signifies loathing?

As for the “semantic hocus-pocus,” I suggest that you read the following pages in Kaufmann’s The Faith of a Heretic: p. 44 (“There are men who use ancient formulations of belief in order to express their own lack of belief. . . . Tillich does it today when he defines God as [human] being-itself”), p. 111 (Tillich, Neibuhr, and Bultmann “say no in ways that sound like Yes”), and p. 130-38 (detailed discussion of Tillich’s use of “double-speak,” defined as “utterances designed to communicate contradictory views to different listeners and readers,” one of the results of which is that “it turns out that millions of theists may really be atheists [they worship the wrong God] while such avowed atheists as Freud and Nietzsche aren’t atheists at all”). I also suggest that you read Tillich’s The Shaking of the Foundations, pp. 53 and 123-25, where Tillich acknowledges that his role as a theologian is to be “all things to all men.” So how does calling a spade a spade disqualify Wheat?

Your imaginative statement that Wheat “loathes theology,” presumably including Tillich’s theology, is hardly supported by Wheat’s relatively mild criticism of Tillich. Your conjuring up the unsupported word “loathes” strikes me as a deplorable attempt to portray Wheat as someone whose interpretation of Tillich was inspired by loathing. Perhaps you can explain why a man you describe as an atheist would loathe another atheist, Tillich. (The only interpretation of Tillich that even approaches loathing is that of David Freeman, who is a devout Christian with divinity school training.)

A final point: You indicate that you believe atheists are unqualified to write about or interpret theology–a strange notion indeed, especially when we consider that Bultmann, Niebuhr, and Robinson all appear to be atheists. Yet three of the four interpreters who have recognized Tillich’s atheism – all but MacIntyre – are atheists. I could even make that four out of five by counting Bishop John A. T. Robinson, another atheist theologian who doesn’t seem to be the least bit fooled by Tillich’s disingenuous hints that his God is supernatural. Perhaps “it takes a rat to smell a rat.” Or, more likely, people trained in theology simply can’t bring themselves to believe that one of their own – indeed, the most highly regarded person in their profession – could be an atheist. Either way, atheism seems more like a qualification than a disqualification for interpreting Tillich.

Saul Tillich (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(i have restored my original comments to their original format. in future, if you wish to make inline comments, COPY the text, then present your comments. as before, stop modifying other user's comments. i'm also adding my sig to the end of each section below, so that it's clear who is saying what.) Anastrophe (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

if you could be less verbose, you would be amusing. while you chastise me for argumentum ad hominem, you employ precisely that in attempting to disparage my concerns; so please, lose the overly pious shock. i'm not responsible for your mistaken inferences, but you are responsible for putting words in my mouth then attacking me for them - please stop doing so. i never said or implied 'divinity school training' was required to interpret tillich. nor am i required - thankfully - to read all of the above, which i have not, and will not, as i consider it - like many of your previous staggeringly long posts - an attempt to conquer by sheer mass. also, i will warn you again, for the last time: do not modify other user's comments. while your latest modification is small - capitalizing 'He' at the beginning of a sentence - it is against common guidelines to modify another user's commentary in any way. please stop doing so. but ultimately, you've betrayed yourself with this post. i just scanned your last paragraph, and you've made it quite clear that your interest here is to discredit tillich, not to write a biography. POV pushing is not condoned on wikipedia. in fact, it's a violation of policy. on that basis alone, i believe it's clearly time to revert this article back to its state before you decided to take over ownership of it. as it stands, others have raised objections about its density/incomprehensibility. wikipedia bio's are supposed to be addressed to a general readership, not a platform for making tortured semantic arguments that a christian theologian was an atheist. Anastrophe (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"if you could be less verbose, you would be amusing. while you chastise me for argumentum ad hominem, you employ precisely that in attempting to disparage my concerns; so please, lose the overly pious shock. i'm not responsible for your mistaken inferences, but you are responsible for putting words in my mouth then attacking me for them - please stop doing so. i never said or implied 'divinity school training' was required to interpret tillich." Anastrophe (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You certainly did imply that divinity school training is necessary. "Leonard F. Wheat is an economist . . . another title he authored is [economic study title] . . . Frankly he's not qualified to interpret Tillich, unless there's some hidden subtext in Tillich that addresses The Effect of Modern Highways on Urban Manufacturing Growth - another trailblazing theological analysis by Wheat." You are saying, in effect (and sarcastically), that an economist cannot be qualified to interpret Tillich. No reasonable person would assume you are any more open to an interpretation by a sociologist, an astronomer, a psychologist, a physician, an English professor, a lawyer, an architect or anyone else lacking a "theological analysis" background, which means a divinity school background. Your implication was and is clear. (Or are you now going to say that, well yes, an astronomer or an architect would be qualified but not an economist, because, well, uh, you know . . . ?)

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"nor am i required - thankfully - to read all of the above, which i have not, and will not, as i consider it - like many of your previous staggeringly long posts - an attempt to conquer by sheer mass."Anastrophe (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you admit to not having read the content or giving consideration to my points, you are not in a position to make your "attempt to conquer by sheer mass" assertion.

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"also, i will warn you again, for the last time: do not modify other user's comments. while your latest modification is small - capitalizing 'He' at the beginning of a sentence - it is against common guidelines to modify another user's commentary in any way. please stop doing so."Anastrophe (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My, aren't we touchy. Do you really feel qualified to say that "do not modify other user's comments" was intended to cover correction of minor typos such as capitalizing the first word of a new sentence? Did you write or approve the advice you quote? Perhaps if you were a little more familiar with law and judicial opinions you would realize that rules are open to interpretation, and that judges tend to frown on forced and contrary-to-common-sense interpretations. The most relevant Wiki policy statement is this: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored."

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"but ultimately, you've betrayed yourself with this post. i just scanned your last paragraph, and you've made it quite clear that your interest here is to discredit tillich, not to write a biography." Anastrophe (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You have falsely accused me three times now (your present post included) of "putting words in my mouth" and then attacking your words. Now you are doing essentially what you falsely claim I did: attributing a false view to me. I can assure you I have no interest in discrediting Tillich. I happen to agree with most of his liberal views on Christian doctrine, and your inability to recognize this fact is good evidence that my purpose is not to "advance a personal editorial view." I even refrained from summarizing Wheat's criticisms of Tillich, an action you characterized as puzzling. If I were trying to discredit Tillich, wouldn't I have summarized Wheat's criticism's -- the criticisms you said were "puzzlingly left out of the article"? My sole interest is in seeing Wikipedia offer an accurate interpretation of Tillich's theology.

In an earlier post, you wrote this: "please show respect for your fellow editors by not implying motive or intent (which is considered uncivil and does not assume good faith)." When you write that I've "made it quite clear that [my] interest [intent] here is to discredit Tillich," you are doing what you earlier condemned -- "implying motive or intent." In your own words, this is "uncivil and does not assume good faith."

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"POV pushing is not condoned on wikipedia. in fact, it's a violation of policy."Anastrophe (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you pushing your point of view, namely, that the evidence "that a Christian theologian was an atheist" is a "tortured" position to take? Can't you understand English? Tillich has plainly identified "something that is fundamental to all my thinking -- the antisupernaturalistic attitude." Moreover, he has plainly said that his God is not a being, is not the God theism, is not pantheistic, and is not mystical. And he has sharply and repeatedly criticized theism, pantheism, and mysticism, as well as explicitly repudiating virtually the whole spectrum of Christian doctrine. Not just Wheat but Kaufmann, Hook, MacIntyre, and Robinson have had no trouble recognizing Tillich's atheism. But you persist in suggesting that he could not have been an atheist for no other expressed reason than your personal unwillingness to believe "a christian theologian was an atheist." And you have taken steps to ensure that your unsupported and unsupportable POV is inserted in the article.

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"on that basis alone, i believe it's clearly time to revert this article back to its state before you decided to take over ownership of it. as it stands, others have raised objections about its density/incomprehensibility."Anastrophe (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you and others can understand either the simply explanation and examples I gave of dialectics or the equally simple description of Tillich's method of correlation (perhaps because you can't understand the analogies that I clearly identified?), the problem lies with you and not the article. You seem unwilling to face the fact that explaining Tillich's thought requires explaining dialectics and correlation. If I were in your shoes, I would be loath to admit that I found the article incomprehensible.

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"wikipedia bio's are supposed to be addressed to a general readership, not a platform for making tortured semantic arguments that a christian theologian was an atheist." Anastrophe (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles are, above all, supposed to be accurate treatments of their subject, not biased rewrites predicated on nothing more than someone's inability to believe "that a Christian theologian was an atheist.":::Saul Tillich (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the clear polemical intent - in breach of WP:SOAP - and the original research inherent in using the article to argue a personal editorial view that Wheat is the best interpreter of Tillich, I've deleted all three theological sections. I'm not sure where the last good version is: prior to Saul Tillich's additions, the theology looks adequate but unsourced. It might be better to start from scratch, with a strict requirement, initially, for sourcing from neutral third-party sources such as encyclopedias. I'm not keen on this Talk page obfuscation either. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your endeavoring to insert your biased and unsupportable POV into the article is unacceptable.

Saul Tillich (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anastrophe and Gordon. Any source claiming that Tillich was an atheist should not be taken seriously insofar as an objective treatment of his life or work is concerned. Tillich shied away from using terms like theism, atheism, and agnosticism as labels to describe himself. They are simply too conceptually coarse for any serious treatment of his thought. Jonalexdeval (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Style

Sorry, but the style has left Planet Earth. Wikipedia is supposed to be comprehensile to the intelligent general reader. Currently, the mass of verbiage will leave that reader with zero idea of what Tillich believed. It is wading at far too high a level. 86.142.255.208 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that. I don't understand this article very well, though I am theology student.Tee2008 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems there should be a more expedient way of getting this article going than the back-and-forth that I see on this talk page. The previous incarnations which included an overview of the philosophy and theology, though certainly far too cursory, were a step above the current bare-bones biography. User:Saul Tillich seems to want to delve too far into optional secondary material and opinion about Tillich rather than what Tillich himself actually wrote (he also seems stuck on a Hegelian interpretation of Tillich, whereas Schelling is mentioned only twice in this discussion). Kaufmann et al are only peripheral sources, but not central or even immediately relevant to this article. I cannot see any reason why his works should necessarily be cited or consulted. Far more relevant are the direct, at least semi-scholarly treatments of Tillich's core body of work: McKelway, Adams, or the numerous essays published by the North American Paul Tillich society, for instance. The article should focus on a direct, synthetic understanding of Tillich's actual writings rather than a cherry-picked synopsis of his more peripheral and popular critics. As far as verbosity, Tillich himself, though concise overall, was verbose or cloudy at times. Any discussion of his philosophy and theology will necessarily reflect some of this.

And Tillich himself was certainly NOT an atheist. We cannot simply rely on the opinions of his more inane critics in order to come to such a conclusion. Like Heidegger, Tillich would probably have preferred something like a transcendence of the terms theism/atheism/agnosticism in light of his attitude toward the concept of existence and the relation of this term to God. Jonalexdeval (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tillich's Antisupernaturalism

User Jonalexdeval (immediately above) asserts this: "Tillich himself was certainly NOT an atheist. We cannot simply rely on the opinions of his more inane critics in order to come to such a conclusion. Like Heidegger, Tillich would probably have preferred something like a transcendence of the terms theism/atheism/agnosticism in light of his attitude toward the concept of existence and the relation of this term to God." Jonalexdeval (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This "not an atheist" assertion is so totally contrary to mountains of evidence, that I will discuss it under this new heading. The evidence below is that which was deleted from the article by personal whose only expressed basis for doing so was their personal beliefs that Protestantism's leading theologian could be an atheist. That basis ignores the following evidence:

Although Tillich’s “God above God” is humanity (Wheat, 1970, pp. 20-22, 90-146) and therefore nonsupernatural, most readers and interpreters have assumed that Tillich is a supernaturalist of one sort or another–either a theist, a deist, or a metaphysician (pantheist, panentheist, or mystic). To understand Tillich’s thought, one must recognize that Tillich totally rejects supernaturalism, not just certain Christian doctrines or even all supernaturalistic beliefs except God. Tillich is an atheist, one of those “who use ancient formulations of belief to express their own lack of belief” when they “say No in ways that sound like Yes” (Kaufmann, 1961a, pp. 44, 111).

Wheat, who has developed this point in extensive detail (Wheat, 1970, pp.23-47), writes that Tillich’s “No denies, unconditionally, the supernatural” and that “anyone who thinks that . . . the No is less than fully ‘radical’ or carries ‘secret reservations’ is not going to understand Tillich” (Wheat, 1970, p. 30). In short, the “unconditional” nature of Tillich’s No means “there can be no compromise with the supernatural” such as a decision “to believe in a supernatural being subject to the reservations that he is neither vindictive nor anthropomorphic nor spatially localized” (Wheat, 1970, p. 29). Wheat cites many quotations in which Tillich has specifically rejected (except for use as symbols) the most basic Christian beliefs, including the God of theism (ibid., pp. 30-41). Kaufmann makes the same point, writing that “Tillich considers the Christian myths untenable” and “considers the central Christian articles of faith untenable, if they are taken literally” (Kaufmann, 1961a, pp. 132, 133).

Tillich has also rejected the gods of deism, pantheism, and mysticism (Wheat, 1970, pp. 41-47) and has combined his rejection of these metaphysical doctrines with his rejection of theism by issuing a blanked rejection of all supernaturalism (ibid., 38-40). In his blanket rejection of all supernaturalism, Tillich refers to “something . . . that is fundamental to all my thinking -– the antisupernaturalistic attitude” (Tillich, 1965, 158, italics added). Wheat observes that the word “all” leaves no room for any sort of supernatural God and that Tillich is refuting interpreters who imply that he “rejects the supernatural on the condition that he can keep his supernatural God–a God that might be termed panentheistic or pantheistic or metaphysical or mystical but which remains a variation of the supernatural theme” (Wheat, 1970, p. 38). Tillich’s No to “all” supernaturalism appears again when he writes: “Self-transcending realism [Tillich’s ‘dialectical realism’] requires the criticism of all forms of supra-naturalism–supra-naturalism in the sense of a theology that imagines a supra-natural world beside or above the natural one, a world in which the unconditional [God] finds a local habitation, thus making God a transcendent object” (Tillich,1948a, p.82, italics added). The all-inclusive No is likewise the basis for Tillich’s saying that “facing the God who is really God means facing the absolute [no exceptions] threat of nonbeing” (Tillich, 1952, p. 39). This means “the nonbeing (nonexistence, unreality) of a supernatural God in any form–and . . . the absolute, unconditional nonbeing of supernaturality” (Wheat, 1970, p. 39).

Lest anyone doubt that “all” really means all, Wheat points out that Tillich specifically disavowed belief in the supernatural events described in the Bible (e.g., God’s creating Adam and Eve, the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection of Jesus), Jesus’s being the Son of God or God incarnate, divine law, sin, divine forgiveness, grace, divine providence, the supernatural Trinity, humans possessed by a supernatural Holy Spirit that comes down from heaven, immortal souls, hell, the second coming of the Christ, future resurrection of the dead, and life beyond the grave (Wheat, 1970, pp. 30-45). For example, the story of Adam and Eve is “an old myth” (Tillich, 1963b, p. 16), “immortality” is just a “popular superstition” (Tillich, 1963a, pp. 409-10), a person “should not boast of having an immortal soul” (Tillich, 1963b, p. 114), it is “superstitious” to think God can suspend the laws of nature (Tillich, 1963b, p.116), and the divine Christ and his resurrection “is an historical myth” (Tillich, 1957b, p. 54).

Tillich made it perfectly clear that he did not believe in the God of theism. One of Tillich’s best-known pronouncements is “God is being-itself, not a being” (Tillich, 1951, p. 237, his italics). “Being-itself” could be applied arbitrarily to any God–it’s just an ambiguous label–but the meaning of “not a being” is perfectly clear. Note that a is italicized. The article a is singular; it means one. Tillich is emphasizing that God is not one being -– “because God is billions of beings” (Wheat, 1970, 134-35). Tillich is not denying that God is more than one being; he is not saying that God is not many beings. “The being [existence] of God cannot be understood as the existence of a being alongside others or above others” (Tillich, 1951, p. 235).

In many additional places Tillich disavows belief in the God of theism. “There are no valid arguments for the ‘existence’ of God” (Tillich, 1952, p. 181). Also: “If ‘existence’ refers to something which can be found within the whole of reality, no divine being exists” (Tillich, 1957b, p. 47). Again: “Ordinary theism has made God a heavenly, completely perfect person who resides above the world and mankind. The protest of atheism against such a highest person is correct” (Tillich, 1951, p. 245). And again: “Atheism is a correct response to the ‘objectively’ existing God of literalistic thought” (Tillich, 1966b, p. 65). Once more: “The half-blasphemous and mythological concept of the ‘existence of God’ has arisen. And so have the abortive attempts to prove the existence of this ‘object.’ To such a concept and to such attempts atheism is the right religious and theological reply” (Tillich, 1959, p. 25). But, if one assumes that attempts to prove God’s existence have indeed been “abortive,” might not faith be adequate to establish God’s existence? Not according to Tillich: “Nothing is more undignified than to make faith do duty for evidence which is lacking” (Tillich, 1963a, p. 131).

What about deism, the idea that God is like a clockmaker who builds a clock (the universe), sets it running, and thereafter takes no interest in it? Tillich casually dismisses deism: “The God of deism,” though a being, is “a God beneath God” (Tillich, 1969, p. 125). “He [the deistic God] is removed from the real with which man must deal” (Tillich, 1951, p. 234). This disparaging description simply does not fit the God above God that Tillich applauds. “Deism . . . consigns God to the fringe of reality and relegates to the world the same independence [from divine intervention] which it has in naturalistic pantheism” (Tillich, 1951, p. 262). Clearly, Tillich is not a deist.

Some observers have accepted Tillich’s statement that his God is “not a being”–neither a theistic nor a deistic God–but have assumed that the God above God is an impersonal supernatural entity. They interpret “not a being” as meaning God is a metaphysical entity akin to the gods of pantheism or to the Greek Logos or to the ineffable metaphysical whatever-it-is that nontheistic mystics seek mystical union with. But Tillich specifically rejects metaphysics. He decries as “speculative-fantastic” the ideas of those who “attempt to establish a world behind the world” (Tillich, 1951, p. 20). With specific reference to pantheism, which he defines as “the doctrine that God is the substance [Spinoza] or essence [Hegel] of all things,” Tillich wrote: “I have written of the God above the God of theism. This has been misunderstood as a dogmatic statement of pantheistic or mystical character” (Tillich, 1957a, p. 12). Tillich rejected any interpretation that “identifies God with the universe, with its essence or with special powers within it” (Tillich, 1957a, p. 6). “The main argument against naturalism in whatever form is that . . . the term ‘God’ becomes interchangeable with the term ‘universe’ and therefore is semantically superfluous” (Tillich, 1957a, p. 7). Emphasizing this point, Tillich opposed “a theology that imagines a supra-natural world beside or above the natural one” (Tillich, 1948a, p. 82). A pantheistic God is endlessly extended in space, encompassing the farthest material in our vast universe. Yet Tillich asserted that God is not “endlessly extended in space” (Tillich, 1951, pp. 276). Regarding mysticism, Tillich said the God above God “transcends both mysticism and the person-to-person encounter” and “it is wrong” to think there is “a second reality behind empirical reality” (Tillich, 1951, p. 178).

The question arises: if God is not a being or any other supernatural entity, why does Tillich constantly refer to God as though he were a being, particularly by using the pronouns “he” and “who”? The answer is that Tillich is putting new wine in old wineskins–giving new meanings to old Christian concepts and beliefs. “God,” “he,” “Son of God,” “holy spirit,” “trinity,” “the fall,” “revelation,” “salvation,” and numerous other terms from the Christian vocabulary are being used as symbols for Tillichian concepts that differ radically from the traditional ones. According to Tillich, “The statement that God is [human] being-itself is a nonsymbolic statement,” but “after this has been said, nothing else can be said about God as God which is not symbolic” (Tillich, 1951, pp. 238-39). Therefore, “every assertion about being-itself [God] is either metaphorical or symbolic” (Tillich, 1952, p. 179), not to be taken literally as a reference to a supernatural being.

Princeton philosopher Walter Kaufmann described this conversion of old beliefs and doctrines into symbols by saying that both Tillich and Reinhold Neibuhr “say No [to the supernatural] in ways that sound like Yes” (Kaufmann, 1961a, p. 111). Kaufmann elaborates: “The theologians have a way of redefining terms in rather odd ways and then engaging in something best called double-speak: their utterances are designed to communicate contradictory views to different listeners and readers” (Kaufman, 1961a, p. 130). Tillich himself, in a classsroom lecture, acknowledged that this is true: “When I am preaching a sermon . . . I speak to people who are unshaken in their beliefs . . . in a language which will not undermine their belief.” But to those in the audience who are “able . . . to hear the full power of the message, freed from old difficulties,” the message has a different meaning. “I can speak to those people, and they are able to understand me, even when I use the old symbols, because they know that I do not mean them in a literal sense” (Tillich, 1965, p.191).

In a published sermon, Tillich practically confessed to using what, in the earlier quotation, Kaufmann called double-speak. “The theologian, in his theology, must become all things to all men” (Tillich, 1948b, p. 123). That is, the theologian must convey different meanings to different listeners. “We [theologians] must become as though weak, although . . . we are not weak . . . . by participating–not from the outside, but from the inside–in the weakness of all those to whom we speak as theologians” (Tillich, 1948b, p. 125). The true theologian must undermine Christian belief “from the inside” (from within the Church) by becoming a subversive–pretending to believe in the supernatural while privately giving new, nonsupernatural substance to “God,” “he,” “who,” and other theological terms.

Saul Tillich (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence below is that which was deleted from the article by persons whose only expressed basis for doing so was their personal beliefs that Protestantism's leading theologian could be an atheist.

The comment by Gordonofcartoon that follows is his excuse for unconscionably deleting from the talk page the opinions of another editor (me) that conflicted with Gordonofcartoon's own opinions. The deleted matter consisted of my aforementioned "evidence below," evidence that Gordon did not want other persons to see. I have no idea what "No, it was not" refers to

Saul Tillich (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not. I deleted it because it was clearly arguing an agenda that goes against what mainstream third-party sources say about Tillich. We are not interested in a synthesis of your personal cherry-picking of sources. And please stop obfuscating discussion with lengthy WP:SOAP essays. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just what do you think you are doing, Gordon? You just deleted another person's comments, something you have no right to do. This isn't the article; this is the talk section, an area where you are not permitted to edit or delete another editor's work. Your preachy friend Anastrophe recently lectured me about so much as touching someone else's comments when I merely did him a favor by capitalizing the first letter of a word that began one of his sentences. Yet here you are acting like a self-annointed God of Wikipedia with absolute rights to censor the arguments, evidence, and opinions of others for no other reason than that you think those opinions are wrong because they are not part of "mainstream opinion." Well, right and wrong in argumentation are not determined by majority vote. Have you forgotten that mainstream opinion once held that the earth was flat and that heaven was a domed region above the clouds? Right and wrong where matters of fact are determined by argument and evidence. You have no right to suppress either.

I will be restoring my comments shortly. Kindly keep your censor's pen off of them.

Saul Tillich (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Essays of this length are clear attempts, on the edge of vandalism, to disrupt discussion. There is no problem at all with removing text that is clearly disruptive in intent. Talk pages are not a vehicle for 2000-word polemical arguments, which are well in breach of WP:SOAP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

censor the arguments, evidence, and opinions of others for no other reason than that you think those opinions are wrong because they are not part of "mainstream opinion.

Read WP:UNDUE. In the article, we are obliged to represent views with appropriate weight. Most commentators, apart from Wheat, don't view Tillich as an atheist. The article must reflect that. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What "most commentators" think has no bearing on the issue. Kaufmann, MacIntyre, Hook, Robinson, and Wheat all regard Tillich as an atheist. So atheism is hardly the isolated opinion of one interpreter. And even if it were, that would not make his opinion wrong. Only ten years or so a single doctor held that ulcers were caused by a certain bacterium; all the rest of the medical profession said ulcers were caused by stress. The single doctor was proven right, and his once isolated opinion is now shared by the entire medical profession.

The article must not "reflect" anything that is false. It can say, as my version did, that most interpreters (they were named) regard Tillich as a supernaturalist, but it cannot deliver the falsehood that he believed in the supernatural, or the more specific McKelway falsehood that the God who is "not a being" really is a being, or the equally false opinion that Tillich is a metaphysician -- contrary to his repeated denials that he believes in metaphysics, pantheism, or mysticism.

Saul Tillich (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What "most commentators" think has no bearing on the issue.

Unfortunately it does. Wikipedia is required to be based on what reliable third-party sources say, in appropriate proportion to what those views are. You're misrepresenting again: no-one has said the article should categorically say any of the things you describe as falsehoods. The article should represent, with due weight, what the various sources say about Tillich. The opportunity, of course, exists for cherry-picking sources - which is why I'm advocating use of mainstream encyclopedias such as Oxford which can be viewd as making a neutral effort to synthesise the general view. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To Saul Tillich: I’ve read your above post, and I can only say that your interpretation of Tillich is so wildly off-base that I’m not sure how I can even begin to comment. It seems that you have not actually taken the time to read Tillich carefully, but rather have chosen to rely on third-parties with clear agendas. You cite from Tillich as if it were a primary citation by you, whereas your understanding of the quote suggests that you picked it out from just such a secondary work which happened to have the same citation. You also seem stuck on applying labels such as "antisupernaturalist", "atheist", "theist" etc. rather than dealing with the material as it is presented by Tillich and other thoughtful scholars.

You are the one who is "wildly off-base." I have read everything Tillich has written in English, and I have also read many of the interpretations by others. The quotations were indeed taken from Wheat, but I have verified them against the original sources (I have an extensive private library), and I cited the original sources because that is what Wiki policy requires. You are the one who has not read Tillich carefully. If you would go back to those original sources that I cite, you would see how clear it is that Tillich does not believe in the supernatural. When Tillich says God is "not a being," and when he further implies that God is more than one being, he means just that. How can you continue to insist that is God is a being after all?

Saul Tillich (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your account and citations about Tillich’s notions of non-being and “God is not a being” are complete misinterpretations of those concepts. God is not many beings or all beings. For Tillich, existence cannot be predicated of God and so neither can the label “a being”. This is in contrast to the medieval doctrine of analogy, for instance, where the concept “being” (not a being) is actually itself analogous, i.e. the highest “being” (not a being) for Aquinas is also a being; whereas for Tillich there is a kind of absolute “jump” or break between being and beings. To go further into it is a VERY complicated endeavor in Tillich’s theology, and it has its roots in Schelling and Bohme, in the notions of ground and abyss as well as the Greek concepts of me-on/ouk-on. For Tillich, God is beyond essence and existence, meaning that we cannot say that God exists. But neither can we say that God does not exist. God neither exists nor doesn’t exist. This can be likened to Heidegger’s notion of existence as a term applying only to dasein: it is a shift in the way we refer to God linguistically. But it is certainly not any kind of atheism that is popular today.

As far as Kaufmann, yes he is a fine Nietzsche scholar, but he does have a particular task or project in the books he writes. While his work is interesting in various respects, I don’t think he is an appropriate source for an objective scholarly account of Tillich’s work. Jonalexdeval (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have absolutely no understanding of what Tillich means by being, essence, or existence. Essence and existence are dialectical concepts referring to the first two stages of a dialectic. God is "beyond" essence and existence -- beyond the thesis, essence (union of God and man), and the antithesis, existence (separation of God and man through man's failure to recognize himself as God) -- because God, the synthesis, will not come into existence until all men recognize all humanity as God. It is you who do not understand the concept of analogy. Tillich's God is the analog of Hegel's Spirit and Marx's working class man. Like them, God goes through a "life" of separation and return.

Saul Tillich (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is quite intolerable. First of all, even if your chosen sources were relatively objective or reasonable in their criticisms, the main body of the encyclopedia article should not revolve around critiques of Tillich's work or even the attempt to classify him as this or that. Rather, it should be a relatively straightforward presentation or distillation of what Tillich was trying to say. Commentary and criticisms can and should be minimized to a small section entitled "criticism", but they are not part of the main body of the article. Most of your claims thusfar strike me as very inadequately argued and supported. Rather, you seem to be in the habit of repeatedly summarizing extremely peripheral material and then suddenly claiming that Tillich is such-and-such as a result. I suppose I can see now why User:Gordonofcartoon wants to stick to printed encyclopedia articles. If users like this keep sabotaging the attempt to create something useful then we will have little choice but to take that route. Jonalexdeval (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Method of Correlation

I've typed up and added this section today. I think it is fairly straightforward and objective.

We also need sections on:

-Being and God -Influence of Depth Psychology (on concepts of existence)? -Christology

I'm not quite as familiar with the 3rd volume, so someone else have at it. Jonalexdeval (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks far better, though maybe still a little heavy. I'm quite inclined to go for sourcing of the basic statements in mainstream secondary sources, which have already done the summarising, rather than primary. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. I suppose it depends on what people want the article to be. The section could conceivably be cut down as more topics get added, although I think I made the first two or three full paragraphs pretty straightforward at least. There should be a section on "God" which summarizes Tillich's basic ontology and the subsequent notion of God as the answer to that ontology (STI, part II). There should be a brief outline and distinction of terms like essential, existential, finite, infinite, etc. The topic of reason and revelation (STI, part I) is fairly convoluted and tedious in ST, and can perhaps be omitted for now. But Christology should certainly be given some space, along with the description of "existence" in the first part of vol. 2 and the psychology influences there. I do think the article should stay away from Hegel (which really doesn't help). Sections on the influence of Bultmann, Heidegger (esp. STI, part II.I) and, for the uber-geeky, Schelling may be helpful. Jonalexdeval (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that a reliance on secondary/tertiary encyclopedia sources would simplify the process insofar as objectivity and interpretation are concerned. However, I am not aware of many encyclopedia articles which adequately and thoroughly summarize Tillich's theology. Certainly one of the best summaries I've come across is Alexander McKelway's original The Systematic Theology of Paul Tillich: A Review and Analysis (I believe it's available used on Amazon). The book also has an introduction by Barth. Although McKelway himself is a Barthian, the vast majority of the book consists in a very objective and concise treatment of Tillich with reasonable criticisms localized at the end of each section. Tillich himself also approved of the book. I think it would be possible for the article to proceed as a combination of such secondary sources and also occasional primary ones. Jonalexdeval (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

McKelway doesn't have the foggiest idea of what Tillich means. His "interpretation" is really a pseudointerpretation, because all he does is paraphrase statements by Tillich that McKelway really doesn't understand. By paraphrasing, he pretends to interpret. He totally disregards Tillich's statement that God is "not a being" by concluding that God actually is a being who shouldn't be called a being because God is so far above man in intellect, power, glory, etc. McKelway simply can't believe Tillich means it when he says God is not a being, so he declares that Tillich's God above God is a being after all.

And McKelway's paraphrased explanation of Tillich's deliberately misleading explanation of the method of correlation, is unenlightening -- because McKelway has no idea of what the method of correlation really is. For that reason, I am reintroducing (below, under a new heading) Wheat's accurate explanation of correlation that you deleted from the article.

Saul Tillich (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please leave it alone. There is a growing consensus that you are attempting to impose a personal interpretation - original research - on the Tillich article. I have reported you to WP:ANI for disruptive and tendentious editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To Saul: Yes, McKelway has his complaints about Tillich, but he is quite clear where his synopsis ends and his criticisms and/or speculations about the implications of Tillich's thought begin. Tillich himself was familiar with the book. I'm just suggesting it as an adequate secondary source. As far as the sources you've suggested, especially Wheat, well, no serious Tillich scholar would consider it. Furthermore, looking back at your previous contributions to the article, I can say that you've simply overloaded the thing with verbose and highly unnecessary forays into Hegelian dialects etc... simply way too far afield and speculative for an encyclopedia article (even a research paper). Jonalexdeval (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)