On Monday, October 17^, 2011, a group of students from Claremont Graduate University and Claremont Lincoln University sat down to discuss what Friedrich Nietzsche’s phrase “Gott ist tot” (God is dead) meant for our different philosophical perspectives.

The panel included six people with different backgrounds, worldviews, and responses to the “death-of-God.”  The panel was co-sponsored by The Society for Philosophy and Religion at Claremont (SPARC) and the Claremont Journal of Religion (of which the proceedings will be published in its Inaugural Issue set for January 2012, www.claremontjournal.com).  What occurred was a stimulating discussion about what “Gott ist tot” means for atheists, Catholics, Evangelicals, and those of other faith traditions.

Of the six panelists, one self-identified as an atheist, another as a liberal Catholic, one as a secular scholar of the Hebrew Bible, and another as an Evangelical Christian (the other two did not choose to deliberately self-identify and many of us discussed the heteronymous nature of the labels we utilize and associate ourselves with).  The six perspectives can be summarized as follows:

• (Atheist):  If death-of-God theology was to truly believe in Nietzsche’s phrase and Nietzsche’s philosophy, it should abandon Christian symbols and just become atheistic.  Religious naturalism does a better job than death-of-God theology in bridging the gap between the sacred and the profane.
• (Liberal Catholic):  The death-of-God shows that contemporary society no longer needs God to explain the physical world we inhabit, since science has already done this sufficiently.  This, however, does not mean that God does not exist, since an Analogy of Being (analogia entis) can still be made.
• (Evangelical Christian):  The death-of-God fills a positive roll in helping Western culture distinguish between “nominal” and “genuine” forms of Christian faith.  God dying on the cross (Jesus) promotes altruism and ethical behavior in a world where people have the “will to power.”
• (Unidentified):  The “death of God” is now on the shoulders of liberal Protestant theology, global communication, and a general “castration” of the divine.  People of immanence are now responsible for themselves and not a deceased distant deity.
• (Secular scholar of the Hebrew Bible):  The death-of-God is about the death of a certain God, namely, Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible.  There are three good reasons to assume the death of this God: biblical criticism, archeological data, and the Holocaust.
• (Unidentified):  Following Nietzsche, a tough-minded spirituality that forgoes transcendence and remains faithful to the earth in all of its ambivalence, will be able to provide a source of life-affirming values long after theism has ceased to be credible.

Many interesting questions were raised by members of the audience, two of which I found very telling: (1) “How does the death-of-God influence the way atheists, Christian fundamentalists, and certain marginal religious groups are viewed by society?” and (2) “Why are religious persons hesitant to admit the faults of themselves and their respective institutions?”

Although the discussion went very well, I think that having other perspectives involved would have enriched the conversation.  Even though the panel was lacking in certain areas, it nonetheless provoked interesting questions and responses from the presenters and audience members alike.

The original article is located here.

State of Formation is pleased to announce a new collaboration between State of Formation and Claremont Journal of Religion.  Excerpts from articles and book reviews published in Claremont Journal of Religion will be cross-posted on State of Formation, creating a new space of dialogue between a well established blog and the recently launched Claremont Journal of Religion.