9 thoughts on “An Atheist with New Theologies”

  1. and I would like to super applaud your entire last paragraph and list.

  2. Thanks Kile for this very provocative post. There is much here to ponder. As a thoroughly Heideggerian, Derridean, apophatic theologian who is currently studying Dionysius and Eckhart and writing a dissertation on Nicholas of Cusa, your piece certainly strikes a few chords. I have not read Altizer, though, so I can’t say whether I’d find him “unproblematic” or not. As a Derridean, though, I suppose I find everything problematic. I’m not sure I understand why enjoying Dionysius, Eckhart, and Cusanus should earn one the label “liberal religious person.” True, Eckhart had his issues with authority (a more complicated story, though, given the specifics of the articles of reproach). But (Cardinal) Cusanus and Dionysius are rather orthodox, are they not? I also have some doubts about your articulation of Heidegger’s ontological difference. Your description seems to suggest an ontological equivocation, which is precisely Heidegger’s adversary in Sein und Zeit. Perhaps, though, I am misunderstanding you. I am in no way fit to defend Tillich, but also a bit surprised to hear his work labeled as ontotheology. (But I hesitate to even write that, since I hold only a rudimentary grasp of Tillich). Throughout the piece, though, I found myself wondering whom, precisely, you are arguing against? It feels as if you are arguing against someone, but I am either mistaken or have missed some key hint as to whom. Is it ontotheology writ large? Would that not be a reification?

  3. Thanks for your comments Brad.

    My point is that usually those who utilize the theology of Dionysus, Eckhart, and Cusa identify as liberal religious persons. Heidegger’s point is that being and Being are different. Ontic relates to the being of beings and Ontological relates to Being in itself. Tillich is blatantly doing ontotheology by equating or relating Being with God, or the Ground of Being. I am not arguing against anyone per se, I am simply hashing out how an atheist can understand and possibly relate to these theologies. I write in a manner of critique, and so I can see why you think I am arguing against someone. That is just my style.

    Best,

  4. I understand religious humanism to be a fluid concept found throughout a multitude of religious and secular philosophies. It can be seen in liberal and post-liberal Christianity, which chooses to emphasize community, pluralism, social responsibility, ethical living, and the human factors at work in religious beliefs. Generally, anyone who considers herself a humanist, even a religious one, does not believe that revelation from God is necessary for moral living or meaning making. Unitarian Universalism is a another good example of religious humanism. Cultural Judaism may also be thought of as religious humanism, even though a majority of them consider themselves secular and have trouble believing in God. Some postmodern theologies may also be considered religious humanism. The forms of humanism I am more familiar with are Secular Humanism and the Ethical Culture movement.

    1. really like this quote:

      What I denounced, the “Christian atheists” now advocate , but only because they have in effect turned Sartre’s definition of man as a useless passion into a soteriological program, not realizing that if godless man no longer needs God to understand himself, neither – as Sartre and Camus show – does he need God to establish himself as his own contradiction (xi).

      Must confess I have not read enough Sartre or Camus but this article reminded me of my desire to do so.

Comments are closed.