Tillich, Phenomenology and Theolgoical Method
Paul Tillich (1885-1965)
Atheists
are always talking about how stupid theology is. "I don't have to read
the theology because I know it's stupid." I hear various ones (not all
but many) say that all the time. I would like them to actually read some
theology and tell me why it's stupid. Here is some theology for them to
read. They are always saying "what else would you use but scinece?"
What that really means is their self selected set of facts form scinece
that back their ideology, excluding those that disprove their ideology.
My answer to them is "phenomenology." But you have to read this to know
how it works.
Enter Tillich
Born
August 20, 1886, in Starzeddel, then a province of Brandenberg, Germany
(now part of Poland), family moved to Berlin 1900. His father was a
Luthern Pastor. He was ordained as a Luthern Pastor in 1912 and kicked
around giving lectures at various universities: Berlin, Dresden and
Frankfurt.[1]
His
liberalism and opposition to the Nazi movement led to his dismissal in
1933. Fortunately, Reinhold Niebuhr, whom he had met in Germany, offered
him a position at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. Tillich
became a U.S. citizen in 1940, then took up a position at Harvard in
1954, followed by one at the University of Chicago in 1962, where he was
to remain until the end of his life.[2]
Paul
Tillich is the central figure in the current effort; Heidegger is
definitely a major influence upon Tillich. Be that as it may the great
Theologian did not merely copy off the philosopher’s understanding of
being. Tillich was a influenced by Heidegger philosophically, but was
also his political enemy. The former was a leftist and a socialist, the
latter a right-winger and Nazi. Tillich was coming from the perspective
of a larger tradition; Christian theology is not all Aristotelian,
there’s a whole Platonic wing that produced centuries of complex and
brilliant ferment form which the average communicant is totally cut off.
That tradition also has it’s own take on being. Tillich lived in that
tradition like a fish lives in water. Perhaps it was Heidegger’s
connection with the “life world” that gave him his connection to Nazism
through the notion of the folks, the soil, the people and their
traditions.[3] It’s
easy for us to judge looking back on Nazism as the emblematic evil,
while we forget many intelligent people were duped by it. Perhaps it was
Tillich’s connection with the medievalists and his love of the Platonic
that enabled him to see the valuable connections in Heidegger’s ties to
the past. Tillich was not a dusty scholar, however, stuck in the
library with no connection to the life of the day. He was a vibrant
intellectual of modernity and he constantly tried to bring his
medievalism into the present and understand it in a modern light. He
used Heidegger to modernize. Nevertheless, in the world of their
present, however, Germany of the 1930’s these arid philosophical issues
took on a concrescence of life and death.
Tillich’s
response to the political situation of his day was a proving ground for
his theological method, and he responded to the crisis of Germany in
the twenties and thirties the same way he responded to modern theology;
by relating the human situation in which he lived to the larger picture
of faith and the Christian and seeking the psychological points of
contact where the human perception of God manifested it in symbolic
terms pointing to our ultimate concerns. Tillich contrasts “Kerygmatic”
theology with “apologetics.” Kerygma refers to the unchanging truth, and
this contrasted with the temporal situation, always in flux.[4]
Tillich’s concept of “the situation” includes the cultural context of
time and place. Tillich is the embodiment of his own concerns. He more
than any other theologian of the twentieth century, personified liberal
theological credo; translating the timeless truth of the Gospel into the
moment in one’s own cultural context, as he advocated doing.
Tillich’s
major methodological move is called “correlation.” In a nut shell, he
correlates the great truths of Christian doctrine, though an
understanding of the symbols it uses, with the existential apprehensions
within the current situation, when the two stack up in some way, he
lined them up.[5]
Tillich understood this as a philosophical task, even for theologians.
The task of the philosopher must draw upon material from all realms of
culture.[6]
One central question give focus to the entire inquiry: what does it
mean to exist? Tillich understood this as an “existential” analysis. The
cultural context of this term as used in that era meant that the
question was central to human understanding.[7]
The term “existential” is closely related to phenomenology. Both deal
with allowing the sense data to suggest the categories into which we
organize the data. Both deal with human understanding as rooted in its
own immediate life situation. It begins with the perspective of the
individual in the concrete situation. One immediate implication of this
aspect is that it might suggest that we ignore the phony Aristotelian
perspective of which atheists try to hard to root themselves, the
“rational man,” the “scientist” (meaning “reductionist”) who decides
before the tally is ever made that there can’t be anything beyond the
material. This “rational man” is a phony place to start because it
automatically rules out the transcendent, the sacred, the aspects of
human existence that have always meant the most to people. It assumes
form the beginning that there’s “nothing there” and reality must be
defined by pre set ideology involving the wearing of white lab coats.
As
the term “existential” implies, the perspective is concerned with the
meaning of existence. According to Tillich’s perspective of the
existential self understanding rooted in the standard point of the
meaning of existence was the primary issue and fundamental problem
around which all of human understanding orbits. “Existence is the
question which underlies all other questions.”[8]
Yet Tillich did not pin the answer upon existentialist dogma. Nor did
he root the answer in the situation itself. The answer would not come
from the situation but from the universal and timeless message brought
by the symbols of the Christian faith. This is no retreat to the ivory
tower; it’s an attempt to bring the truth of the message to the place
where it is needed, the actual concrete situation of life, and to apply
in a relevant way. Tillich said “the method of correlation explains the
content of the Christian faith through existential questions and
theological answers in mutual interdependence.”[9]
The
term “correlation” Tillich uses in three different ways. It can
indicate the correspondence of a series of different sets of data; it
can designate the interdependence of concepts; or it can designate the
real interdependence of things in structural wholes.[10]
There
is a correlation in the sense of correspondence between religious
symbols and that which is symbolized by them. There is a correlation in
the sense between concepts denoting the human and those denoting the
divine. There is a correlation in the factual sense between man’s
ultimate concern and that about which he is ultimately concerned. The
first meaning of correlation refers to the central problem of religious
knowledge…the second meaning of correlation determines the statements
about God and the world, for example the correlation of infinite and
finite. The third meaning of correlation qualifies the divine human
relation within religious experience…[11]
This
is a crucial passage in Tillich, because these concepts, his take on
symbols and their participation in what they symbolize, the use of
symbols as the delivery system for revelation, meaning, answers, as well
as the religion of the eternal and the temporal, these are the concepts
which form the basic engine of his ontotheology. [12]
In the next chapter these concepts will be crucial in formulating the
meaning of “being itself, “ or “the ground of being.” There has been a
certain degree of fear expressed by various theological concerns that
correlation relativizes the divine or makes God dependent upon man.
Tillich argues that God is not dependent upon man but our understanding
of God’s revelation to us is dependent upon our willingness to
understand. Solidarity between humans and the divine is dependent upon
our willingness to be in solidarity.[13] Thus it is also dependent upon our wiliness to seek correlation.
The
methodology of correlation proceeds as follows: In analyzing the human
situation the theologian demonstrates that symbols used in the Christian
message offer answers to the existential questions that arise. The
answers are much older than existentialism. Tillich points out that they
are as old as humanity and they have been expressed in many ways since
humans began to think philosophically.[14]
In pondering our existential condition we realize that we are strangers
in the world and we can’t penetrate beyond the surface level of
science. In coming to grasp this realization we also realize that we
ourselves are the answer to this problem. Because we are human, because
we are trapped in an existential dilemma we automatically have the
credentials and the method for moving beyond the surface level, which is
the level of science, and penetrating the nature of being. Though our
state as examples of being for itself we are able to understand the
nature of existence. This is where we can employ philosophical thinking
in understanding our own being. “whoever has penetrated into the nature
of his own finitude can find the traces finitude in everything that
exists. And he can ask the questions implied in his finitude as the
question implied in finitude universally.”[15]
The Scientific Argument
At
this point I can hear the critics, the atheist reader saying “this
approach still has none of the virtues of science.” The argument would
say science is the only reliable and systematic
means of verification for claims one makes about reality. Reliable and
systematic are important, and that leads to the concepts of
verification, prediction, replicability. Without scientific methods
there are no way to guarantee such things, those are the bottom line of
scientific work. The more ideologically oriented critic is going to be
saying “this is all made up, this is just philosophy, and philosophy is
made up crap, only with science can you have this assurance that you
have a factually based solid principle.” I’ve already discussed the
problem with that concept. Their “factually based” principles are based
upon a selective set of facts. It should be enough to point out the
ideological nature of a line of thinking to cast doubt upon it. We’ve
already discussed the limitations of science. The argument originally is
that science can’t get at God. God is beyond our understanding, not
given in sense data, the basis of reality, and thus can’t be an object
of empirical study. Given the fact that science is not available we are
looking for alterative. This is not a matter replacing science with a
mutually exclusive from of discovery. It’s a matter of what to do with
the gaps where science can’t function.
First,
there is an inherent foolishness in expecting theology to do what
science does. The skeptics don’t like theology, they don’t want theology
to do its job, they don’t understand its job. For atheists science is
their er zots religion; it functions for them as a religion. They
see theology as transgression against science because it’s a competing
form of religiosity. Yet since science is limited in its ability to
grasp the divine, it’s not a fit tool for the job. At least in the sense
of replacing theology totally, science is not the tool. The skeptic is
going to have to allow theology to do what it does, of course that
assumes the skeptic listens long enough to get some idea of what
theology is supposed to do. We can’t have scientific results, but we
should not expect them. We can use science in a way that employs them
where divine aspects overlap with empirical data, but we can’t expect
the kind of “certainty” and selective pretense of “factual” view point
that we from science. The ideology of scientism, the view that says only
science counts as knowledge, doesn’t offer the sort of certainty it
pretends to, it is merely the pretense of objectivity. The scientistic
ideologue cuts off reality at the point where her data ends. If the
scientific method cannot be used to deliver certainty then the
scientistic adherent just assumes that there is no reality beyond that
point. Reality is trucked and closed in on itself as only that which can
be controlled through empirical understanding. There is a tendency
among legitimate scientific thinkers to follow in the wake of the
ideology. This demand for certainty and factualism is actually a bid for
control. Phenomenology teaches us to open up to possibilities, to
accept that reality is bigger than our understanding. We are not seeking
to control but to discover.
Secondly,
my standard is global knowledge. I do not push to replace science with
theology but to use all we have and use it in an appropriate way. We
should use science in conjunction with theology in a manner that employs
scientific thinking and methods when and where they are appropriate for
the task. There are areas where science is used effectively to tell us
something about theological truth; the M scale developed by Ralph Hood
that measures the validity of one’s “religious” experience with respect
to it’s “mystical” authentication. A huge body of empirical scientific
work has been done to understand the effect of mystical experience upon
the receiver of that experience.[16]
Yet, we can’t translate that data into an argument about the existence
of God without understanding the proper limits of science and then using
theological method in its proper perspective. We should never expect
the same kind of results with get with science. We can employ scientific
understanding in those areas where we have the possibility of empirical
results, and extrapolate from those results by means of deductive
reasoning.
The Co-determinate and the Logic of the lamp post
The
logic of the lamp post says you should not search for your missing car
keys in the dark. You can’t find the keys in the dark so search under
the lamp post. If they are to be found that’s where you could find them.
One might question this logic on the grounds if we weren’t standing
near the lamp post but over in the dark that’s where they will be. Yet
there is a lamp post in the quest to answer the God question, that lamp
post illuminates the most likely ground. The lamp post is the
co-determinate, the concept of Schleiermacher, the “signature,” the
trace, the marker that accompanies the presence of God; that would be
the effect of experiencing the presence of God. I set out these concepts
to a greater degree in The Trace of God.[17] This is not phenomenology, although there are overlaps. The Trace of God deals
with a huge body of scientific work, mainly from psychology of religion
(a much larger sub-discipline than most people realize). This body of
work consists of several hundred studies (I say 200 to be conservative)
All of which demonstrate that religious experience is life transforming;
that is to say it dramatically and profoundly changing life long term
is a positive way. This includes self actualization, emotional healing,
physical health, mental health, across the board. Those who have such
religious experiences are much less likely to be depressed or mentally
ill and feel their lives are purposeful and meaningful and score higher
on happiness scales than do their religious counterparts, much less
unbelievers.
Over
the years numerous claims have been made about the nature of
spiritual/mystical and Maslow’s “peak experiences”, and about their
consequences. Wuthnow (1978) set out to explore findings regarding peak
experiences from a systematic random sample of 1000 persons and found
that peak experiences are common to a wide cross-section of people, and
that one in two has experienced contact with the holy or sacred, more
than eight in ten have been moved deeply by the beauty of nature and
four in ten have experienced being in harmony with the universe. Of
these, more than half in each have had peak experiences which have had
deep and lasting effects on their lives. Peakers are more likely also,
to say they value working for social change, helping to solve social
problems, and helping people in need. Wuthnow stressed the therapeutic
value of these experiences and also the need to study the social
significance of these experiences in bringing about a world in which
problems such as social disintegration, prejudice and poverty can be
eradicated. Savage et al., (1995) provided clinical evidence to suggest
that peakers produce greater feelings of self-confidence and a deeper
sense of meaning and purpose. Mogar’s (1965) research also tended to
confirm these findings.
Some
researchers in the recent past have found that life satisfaction
correlated positively with mystical / spiritual experiences, and these
experiences were further found to relate positively to one’s life
purpose (Kass, et al., 1991). In fact researchers are of the view that a
positive relation between positive affect and mystical experiences may
not be surprising given that intense positive affect is often considered
to be one of the defining characteristics of these experiences (Noble,
1985; Spilka, Hood & Gorsuch, 1985). The few studies that
investigated well-being measures, spirituality and spiritual experience
have found that people who have had spiritual experiences are in the
normal range of well-being and have a tendency to report more extreme
positive feelings than others (Kennedy, Kanthamani & Palmer, 1994;
Kennedy & Kanthamani, 1995)…A study by De Roganio (1997)
content-analyzed and organized into a paradigm case examples found in
themes of 35 lived-experience informants and 14 autobiographers who
represented a wide range of people with physical disability and chronic
illness. It was found that the combined elements of spiritual
transformation, hope, personal control, positive social support and a
meaningful energetic life enabled individuals to improve themselves and
come to terms with their respective conditions. These experiences led
many people to realize their own interest, sense of wholeness and unity,
and to experience and integrate a deeper meaning, sense of self and
spirituality within their lives….Some studies have offered a spiritual
approach to addiction problems. Caroll (1993) found that 100 members of
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) benefited from spirituality which was found to
correlate positively with having a purpose in life and the length of
sobriety. Frame and Williams (1996), in their study of religions and
spiritual dimensions of the African-American culture, address the role
of spirituality in shaping identity, and conclude that reconnecting AA
clients to their powerful spiritual tradition may be a crucial catalyst
for personal empowerment and spiritual liberation. The finding was
confirmed in a later study by Wif and Carmen (1996). Another study
reported by Green et al., (1998) described the process of spiritual
awakening experienced by some persons in recovery during the quest for
sobriety. The data suggested that persons in recovery often undergo life
altering transformations as a result of embracing a power higher than
one’s self i.e., a “higher power”. The result is often the beginning of
an intense spiritual journey that leads to sustained abstinence.[18]
The
most important step in pulling together an understanding of the
significance of this work was the development of the “M scale” (Mystical
scale) by Ralph Hood Jr. the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga. Hood
used the theories of W.T.
Stace about the nature of mysticism to construct a questionnaire that
measured how closely a person’s experiences conformed to the typology
that Stace’s theory suggests.
The scale has been so successful it has become the standard operating procedure[19]
and replaces the former practice of the researcher trying to develop
her own scale, a practice that led to as many scales as there were
studies. The M scale is by far the most successful and has been cross
culturally validated with great successes. It is based on the
phenomenological categories of mystical study by W.T. Stace and makes
certain assumptions of William James. Hood’s original measuring
instrument, the REEM, was based upon the categories of James. The M
scale follows the phenomenological development of Stace. The scale uses
32 items (these are questions that are asked of the subject). The items
are organized with 16 Positive and 16 negatively worded. Independent
studies supported Hood’s original design, (Caird, 1988, Reinert and
Stifler, 1993).[20]
Originally M scale measured two factors: (1) Assesses items of an
experienced unity (introvertive or extrovertive). (2) Assesses items of a
experience of religious or non religious and knowledge claims. This is
consistent with Stace’s concept that Mystical experience can be
interpreted in many ways. Reinert and Stifler suggested religious items
and knowledge items might emerge as separate factors. This would split
the interpretative factors between religious and non-religious factors.
That would not contradict Stace. There is a distinction between
“spiritual” and “religious.” Mystical experience can be interpreted (as
we have seen already) as “spiritual” without being thought religious, or
as “mystical” without involving God. The two-item approach allows
greater interpretation. But the interpretive factor was religious in
nature. The assumptions made in the study and taken to answering the
questions tended to be religious.[21]
Hood
changed his strategy from two analytic factors to three (“the three
factor solution”). The Three factor solution sets up three categories,
which more closely follow the predictions of Stace based upon his
reading of mystics and person experience. (“phenomenological”). The
three categories for Stace were: Staces’ categories of Introvertive and
extrovertive mysticism emerging as two separate factors. The third
factor is an interpretive dimension where the respondent relates the
experiences to knowledge claims (“God is love” or some such). Interovertive
means the mystical experience is beyond word though or image, it is
iner directed and not related to any outside phenomenon and I supposed
to be beyond description. This will also be discussed more in chapter
five (“Religious Apiori”). Extrovertive means the subject’s
experience is related to nature or to some external image in the
immediate environment, a sense of the numinous, the harmony underlying
all of nature or something on that order.[22]
The
M scale has been tailored to many different cultures and been verified
and validated in a half dozen different countries, several cultures and
religious traditions.
In
a series of empirical measurement based studies employing the Mysticism
scale introvertive mysticism emerges both as a distinct factor in
exploratory analytic studies[23]
and also as a confirming factor analysis in cultures as diverse as the
United States and Iran; not only in exploratory factor analytic studies
(Hood & Williamson, 2000) but also in confirmatory factor analyses
in such diverse cultures as the United States and Iran (Hood, Ghornbani, Watson, Ghramaleki, Bing, Davison, Morris, & Williamson. (2001).[24]
In other words, the form of mysticism that is usually said to be beyond
description and beyond images, as opposed to that found in connection
with images of the natural world, is seen through reflection of data
derived form the M scale and as supporting factors in other relations.
Scholars supporting the unity thesis (the mystical sense of
undifferentiated unity—everything is “one”) have conducted interviews
with mystics in other traditions about the nature of their introvertive
mystical experiences. These discussions reveal that differences in
expression that might be taken as linguistics culturally constructed are
essentially indicative of the same experiences. The mystics recognize
their experiences even in the expression of other traditions and other
cultures. These parishioners represent different forms of Zen and Yoga.[25]
Scholars conducting literature searches independently of other studies,
who sought common experience between different traditions, have found
commonalities. Brainaid, found commonality between cultures as diverse
as Advanita-Vendanta Hinduism, and Madhmika Buddhism, and Nicene
Christianity; Brainaid’s work supports conclusions by Loy with respect
to the types of Hinduism and Buddhism.[26]
The
M scale developed by Hood has been validated by many studies in cross
cultural context, while Greely’s Gallop Poll questions have been used
both cross culturally and longitudinally.
The
two major exceptions to the lack of shared instrumentation are the
mysticism scale by Hood (1975) which has been used in quite a number of
studies by Hood and others, and the repeated use of certain questions in
survey research by Greeley and the Gallop Organization over a sixteen
year period.[27]
Holm (1982) “mysticism and intense experiences” demonstrates another level of cross-cultural validation.
Method:
The author translated into Swedish several Hood scales designed to
measure mystical experiences. The items describing religious experiences
drawn from William James, on Hood’s (1970) Religious Episode Experience
Measure (REEM) with narratives taken from Nordic anthologies. Eighteen
teachers of religion and psychology each administered the scales to 6-9
persons.
Findings:
The study replicated most of Hood’s findings with the same instruments.
“The results of our empirical study of mysticism in a Finnish-Swedish
environment largely coincide with Hood’s results in an American
environment…The cross-cultural testing that some of Hood’s methods have
received as a result of our research on another continuant and in
another linguistic area means that the results have received a wider
range of applications.[28]
Holm
(1982) presented a Swedish M scale administered to 122 Swedish
“informants.” Factor I correlated best to non Christian profiles, while
factor II worked best with those who had Christian assumptions. Holm
accounts for a general mysticism factor and general religious factor.
This parallels earlier research in Sweden (Solderblom—see Holm 82, 275-76) .[29]
The M scale has been validated with Iranian Muslims.
In
a mostly Christian American sample (N = 1,379), confirmatory factor
analysis of Hood's (1975) Mysticism Scale verified the existence of
Stace's (1960) introvertive and extrovertive dimensions of mystical
phenomenology along with a separate interpretation factor. A second
study confirmed the presence of these three factors in not only another
group of Americans (N = 188), but also a sample of Iranian Muslims (N =
185). Relationships of the introvertive and extrovertive factors with
the interpretation factor were essentially identical across these two
cultures, but the Americans displayed a stronger association between the
two phenomenology factors. In both samples, the interpretation factor
correlated positively with an intrinsic and negatively with an extrinsic
religious orientation, and the introvertive factor predicted
psychological dysfunction. Associations of the interpretation factor
with relative mental health appeared only in the Iranians. These data
offered general support for Stace's phenomenology of mysticism, although
the ineffability he linked with interpretation proved to be as much or
even more a feature of the introvertive experience, as hypothesized by
Hood.[30]/[31]
Tillich
doesn’t deal with that sort of empirical data. Yet he does begin with
empirical religious experience (but does not offer scientific data) and
basic concepts like the eternal vs. temporal, the object of ultimate
concern and basic ontological concepts grounded in human experience.
This lamp post logic enables us to start from an empirical position
backed by concrete data. From there we can follow Tillich as he moves
from the empirical to the ideal and the symbolic. He has a whole
philosophy of the symbolic that understands symbol as participating in
that which is symbolized. Thus God can be both a concrete reality and a
symbol of human experience. The concrete data provided by these
psychological studies and the M scale furnishes us with an understanding
of the experience as the co-determinate of the divine, the concept of
Schleiermacher. “God is co-present in religious self-consciousness.”[32] The empirical work in psychology referenced by The Trace of God [33] offer
a means of grounding divine/human encounter in the concrete and the
measurable. Thus the experiences are established a rational warrant for
the assumption of the co-determinate based upon their content and their
concrete effects. The experiences offer grounding in the practical to
establish the relationship to the transcendent.
Before
we can proceed to applying the method to demonstrate that it is a
viable method of understanding we must first understand what we are
talking about. The central theme of my approach is Tillich’s concept of
God as being itself, or as it should be known from
historical Christian theology, the superessential Godhead. The next
chapter will be a discussion of Tillich’s view in an attempt to explain
what it means. That view is heavily laden with philosophical (especially
ontological) assumptions. The next three chapters are about explicating
this concept. After that I will deal with applying this method to
demonstrate something in the way of a truth content that the reader can
cling to. I say all of this in hopes that the reader will not being
reading the next chapter while thinking “where’s the science! This is
just philosophical garbage, how does he know this? Where’s the science?”
Yet what one will see in the way of Tillich’s views in this next
chapter, an explication of his systematic theology with regard to the
concept of ground of being (being itself) will actually
demonstrate the method in action. We will see Tillich reasoning out from
human experience in the act of being, to conclusions based upon
understanding Christian doctrine in light of phenomenological
apprehension.
Depth and Eternity
Two
major examples that we will see used in the next chapter, concepts of
depth and the eternal; by” depth” Tillich speaks of being having depth,
as in “there more to it than meets the eye,” and he also uses the phrase
in relation to depth psychology. For him the depth of being means
“deep” in these of more to it and hard to understand requires knowledge
and thought. This is all a reflection of the psychological effects of
our experiences in being.
The
eternal is also important in understanding human experience. We can’t
know the experience of the infinite or the eternal but we can know the
experience of the temporal. The disjunction between the concepts,
knowing the temporal and longing for the eternal, and the psychological
effect that has on human understanding forms an important basis in
understanding the nature of being and its depth. Thus in all of his
ontology Tillich is reflecting this dialectical approach that works
between historical doctrine and human experience. The two coordinate at
some point, but doctrines are shaped by humans. Ultimately it’s all a
reflection of our understanding of being as gathered first hand from our
participation in being.
Sources
Sources
[1] Sam Addision, Website for Gifford Lectures. “Authors, Paul Tillich.” URL http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=169 visited 10/20/10.
[2] Ibid
[3] find
[4] Michael Gleghorn. “Paul Tillich’s Theological Method: A Summary Evaluation.” Online PDF file, URL: http://michaelgleghorn.com/documents/PaulTillichsTheology.pdf
visited 10/28/10. no pagination.
Gleghorn
is a conservative from Dallas Theological Seminary so his ultimate
evaluation of Tillich’s theology is negative. He finds that Tillich is
prone to error due to his method. Yet his summary of Tillich’s view is
cogent.
[5] Gayton B. Hammond, “An Examination of Tillich’s Method of Correlation.” Oxford Journals: Journal of The American Academy of Religion Vol XXXII, Issue 3, 248-251. On line version URL: http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXXII/3/248.extract . Visited
11/8/10, Hammon is professor of Philosophy and Religion at Virginia
Polythechnic Institute in Blacksberg Va. Ph.D. Vanderbilt, Yale Divinity
School.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Paul Tillich quoted in Alistter E. McGrath, “Paul Tillich: Method of Corroletion,” The Christian Theology Reader. (online
page 53) Maldan Ma, USA: Blackwell Publishing, Alister E. McGrath ed.
first published 1995, second edition 2001-2004 Google books online
version URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=yDls7tV0mRcC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Paul+Tillich+Method+of+Correlation&source=bl&ots=81AvGNSD_Z&sig=0deQITzlW4LAUyLi10IR0wZdolY&hl=en&ei=-2bJTNTjB4G0lQf66YDBAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Paul%20Tillich%20Method%20of%20Correlation&f=true visited 11/8/10.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12]
Ontotheology, I understand that this term is used mockingly of
thinkers such as Tillich. It’s like the term “phalologocentric” it’s a
means of saying “this is out of date,” ‘this is opposed to our truth
regime.” I therefore use it proudly and defiantly.
[13] Tillich in McGrath, Ibid.
[14] Ibid. 54
[15] Ibid.
[18] K. Krishna Mohan, “Spirituality and Well Being, an Overview,” presentation made during the Second International Conference on Integral Psychology, held at Pondicherry (India), 4-7 January 2001. The text has been published in:
Cornelissen, Matthijs (Ed.) (2001) Consciousness and Its Transformation, Pondicherry: SAICE on the Indian Psychology Insitute website URL:http://ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.htm visited 11/11/10
Cornelissen, Matthijs (Ed.) (2001) Consciousness and Its Transformation, Pondicherry: SAICE on the Indian Psychology Insitute website URL:http://ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.htm visited 11/11/10
[19] Bernard Spilka, Ralph Hood Jr., Bruce Hunsberger, Richard Gorwuch. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. New York, London: the Guildford Press, 2003, 323.
[20]Ibid.
[21] Ibid,
[23]
Ralph Hood Jr., W.P. Williamson. “An empirical test of the unity
thesis: The structure of mystical descriptors in various faith samples.”
Journal of Christianity and Psychology, 19, (2000) 222-244.
[24]
R.W. Hood, Jr., N.Ghorbani, P.J. Waston, et al “Dimensions of the
Mysticism Scale: Confirming the Three Factor Structure in the United
States and Iran.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40 (2001) 691-705.
[25] R.K.C. Froman, Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness Albany: State University of New York Press, (1999) 20-30.
[26] F.S. Brainard, Reality and Mystical Experience,
Unvisited Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. (2000). See also
D.Loy, Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. Amherst, New
York: Humanities Press.
[27] David Lukoff and Francis G. Lu. “Transpersonal Psychology Research Review Topic: Mystical Experience.” The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, vol. 20, no.2 (1988) 161
[28] Ibid.
[29] Spilka et al, 326
[30]
Hood, Ralph W. Jr., Ghorbani, Nima. P.J. Watson, Ghramaleki, Ahad
Framarz, Mar N Bing.”Dimensions of the Mysticism Scale: Confirming the
Three-Factor Structure in th United States and Iran.” Mournal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 40:4 (2001) 691-705.
[31] this block of quotations is from The Trace of God.
[32] Thomas Heinrich Curran, Doctrine and Speculation in Schleiermacher’s Glaubenslehre. Berlin/New York: Waler de Gruyter and co. 1994.
[33] Op cit
