#4 FPC, Lowville, NY Fall 2012 Theological Study Group

Study Notes for Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith, Chapter Two Section 1: The Intellectualistic Distortion of the Meaning of Faith faith can be distorted in ways that have powerful influence over popular thinking these distortions have to be rejected these distortions can be very sophisticated they all are a result of over-emphasizing one aspect (function) of the human personality The most often misinterpretation of faith is to see it as belief in something for which there is insufficient evidence or for which there is a low probability we believe many things on the basis of our trust in what others (authorities) tell us, but we dont have faith in those authorities faith is more than trust in even the most sacred authority, including the Bible in faith, we invest our whole being in our ultimate concern, which is not a matter of theoretical knowledge or of the sciences & other fields of knowledge faith is not a type of knowledge that is improbable but supported by religious authority faith thus is not in conflict with science in fact the scientific method itself involves ultimate concern, and the conflict between faith & science is actually a conflict between two types of faith Faith & knowledge lead to different kinds of certitude the certainty knowledge gives is either from sense perception or the rules of logic & math, which represent knowledge of the real world one of the worst mistakes religion can make is to try to contradict the structure of reality such attempts are not matters of faith but of [false] belief this knowledge of reality is never 100% certain & never can be complete because theres more to know than we can ever know faith, however, can be certain because it doesnt rely on formal evidence or belief it is existential, involving our whole existence focused on an ultimate still, it always involves risk, doubt, & courage because we might invest our being in something not ultimate Section 2: The Voluntaristic Distortion of the Meaning of Faith this form of distortion can be divided into Catholic & Protestant types the Catholic type sees faith as an act of our will in which we make ourselves have faith in spite of limited evidence for what we decide to have faith in this view distorts faith because we force our mind to believe what otherwise might not seem worthy of faith this distortion reflects a Catholic authoritarian attitude that can be willful & arbitrary the Protestant type of this distortion is related to its moral view of religion & is based on the idea that one is commanded to believe by an authority [as I understand it, the Catholic distortion is internal (I make myself believe & so have faith) & the Protestant version is external (I am told to believe & so have faith)] It is important in religious education, counseling, & preaching to never seem to demand faith (as an act of will) or to argue someone into faith (as the act of an external authority) Neither arguments for belief nor the will to believe can create faith. (p. 44) Section 3: The Emotionalistic Distortion of the Meaning of Faith the problems involved with the first two forms of distortion have led some to see faith as emotion some Christians take this view as a way to escape the problems of seeing faith & knowledge (belief) or will critics or religion accept it as a way to trivialize religion (it is just about feelings) so that religion becomes a purely personal, impotent thing that cant make truth claims or compete with science but faith cant be restricted in this

#4 (or any) way faith claims the whole person & all of the functions of a person faith is not about emotionally-based religion as such, because even those who dont see themselves as religious have ultimate concerns that are about more than emotions those most engaged in attacking religion still exhibit ultimate concerns faith has emotional content, but emotions are not the source of faith faith is definite, directed toward the unconditional, and sseen in concrete reality it claims to be true & it demands commitment Questions 1. What does Tillich mean when he says we should not have faith in the Bible? Is he saying we should not trust it? For him, what is the relationship of trust to faith? If we dont have faith in the Bible, what then is the role of the Bible in a Christian faith? 2. Is science ultimately a form of faith? Why &/or why not? 3. Tillich seems to be saying that in our faith we can have a certainty that we can never have in our knowledge of reality. Is that true? And if it is true, why does emphasize the risk of faith? Doesnt risk imply uncertainty? How can faith be certain and yet have doubt as an important element of it? 4. Why does Tillich divorce faith from belief? Why does he insist it is not a form of knowledge? 5. Is Tillichs characterization of Catholic & Protestant distortions of faith fair to each? Why or why not? If so, how do these distortions create obstacles for faith? 6. Which of these three distortions of faith do you see as most significant? Most dangerous? Have you experienced any of them or witnessed them in others? 7. Do you agree with Tillich that faith is not about religion as such? Why or why not?