Forty-nine years ago, an eighteen-year-old Harvard undergraduate asked Paul Tillich whether his recent vision was religious ecstasy, a conversion experience, or an enlightenment. The student had handed his essay, "The Phenomenological Proof of God," to Tillich. Two days later the young man was hospitalized as a schizophrenic. Ever since, the author has attempted to understand the relationships between religious revelation, mystical ecstasy and psychosis. If his beatific vision was a hallucination, then should not all similar experiences also be diagnosed as (...) psychopathological? His meeting with Tillich will always remain "the still point of the turning world," since it confirms the healing power of religious faith, "the Son of Man in our presence," and kairos as defining concepts of Tillich's theology. (shrink)

This essay discusses two issues. The first concerns whether the “insider’s” or “outsider’s” perspective is more truth-conducive in the study of religion. I do not attempt to settle this very thorny question: I merely attempt to identify some aspects of what it might mean to be an insider with respect to one kind of investigation – the investigation into whether God exists. The second issue concerns how best to characterize certain philosophical positions on the axiology of ultimate reality. Here I (...) argue that it can be useful to group together certain axiological positions under one heading, while leaving their details open to interpretation. For example, two philosophers might agree that God’s existence would – or does – make the world far better than it would otherwise be, even though they have incompatible notions of what constitutes ‘far’ and ‘better’. In my view, it makes sense to call both thinkers pro-theists, despite their differences. In discussing these issues, I engage the work of Myron A. Penner and Paul Moser, both of whom published replies to a paper of mine in the most recent issue of the Toronto Journal of Theology. (shrink)