Faber, de-Ontologizing God

7/29/2019 Faber, de-Ontologizing God

1/15

De-Ontologizing GodLevinas, Deleuze, and Whitehead

R O L A N D F A B E R

:

Ontology and the De-Ontologization of GodOntology and theology seem to express a reciprocal relationship. As theGerman theologian W alter Kasper writes, "God-Talk presupposes the meta-physical question o f Being an d evokes it at the same time."1 Hence, ontolog-ical God-language is a significant, although disputed, aspect of theologicalan d philosophical discussion pne thinks of the importance of Charles H art-shorne's occupation with the ontological argument of Anselm of Canterbury.The hope for an ontological horizon of God-language still lurks on the groundof theological propositions; so we find it, for instance, behind Hans Kiing'squestion (and book), Does God Exist? Under the reign of ontology, the mostimportant question seems to be that of God's "existence."

Nevertheless, since Ludwig Feuerbach's strong reproach of projection,Friedrich Nietzs che's denial of the "existence" of God, and Immanuel Kant 'sdeconstruction of ontological God-language in his First Critique, the correla-t ion, congruence, or even reciprocity between theology and ontology can nolonger be claimed naively. Criticism within and external to theology hasforced theologians to think about de-ontologizing God. Language-critical,psychoan alytic, decon structive,, and ethical reasons underly this process ofdissociating theology from ontology. The language-critical reason: "God" isthe expression of general no tions (like "the world"); thus, "God" is a languagesignifier by which the subject of speech is to be constituted as "manifestor."Subject an d signifier mutually cause one another; they do not need any a pri-ori designations or relation with "real" objects (LS, 12ff.). The psychoanalyticreason: "God" refers to the repressive reality of the "Super-Ego" (father andmother). Its strength of repression canalizes the "Id" and stabilizes the "Ego."


2/15


3/15


4/15


5/15


6/15


7/15


8/15


9/15


10/15


11/15


12/15


13/15


14/15 .


15/15

Published byState University of New York Press, AlbanyChapter 3, "Whitehead, Deconstruction, and Postmodernism," by Luis Pedraja waspreviously published in Process Studies (PS 28.1-2).Chapter 4, "Whitehead and the Critique of Logocentrism," is adapted from JosephBracken, S.J., The One in the Many, 2001 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,Grand Rapids, MI. Used by permission; all rights reserved.Chapter 8, "A Whiteheadian Chaosmos?" by Tim Clark was previously published inProcess Studies(PS 28.3-4). 2002 State University of New YorkAll rights reservedPrinted in the United States of AmericaNo part of this book may be used or reproduced in an y manner whatsoeverwithout written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval systemor transmitted in an y form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic,magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwisewithout the prior permission in writing of the publisher.For information, address State University of New York Press,90 State Street, Suite 700, Albany, NY 12207Production by Judith BlockMarketing by Patrick DurocherComposition by Doric Lay PublishersLibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataProcess and difference : between cosmological and poststructuralist postmodernisms /Catherine Keller and Anne Daniell, editors.p. cm. (SUNY series in constructive postmodern thought)

s B - 7 - 5 (alk. paper) - ISBN 0-7914-5288-3 (pbk. :alk. paper)1. Process philosophy. 2. Poststructuralism. 3. Postmodernism. I. Keller,

Catherine, 1953- II. Daniell, Anne, 1965- III. Series.BD372 .P719 2002146.7dc21

1 09 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

2001032204

Process and DifferenceBetween Cosmological and P oststructuralist

Postmodernismsedited by

CATHERINE KELLER and ANNE DANIELL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK PRESS

Documents

Faber, de-Ontologizing God