Tillich thought that faith was an act of the total personality meaning it took place in the unconscious as well as the conscious. He says that because of this, it is beyond rational and irrational thinking. He believed that faith is possible simply because man understands that there is an ultimate. This is enough to have an ultimate concern for it.
One of Tillich’s more controversial views is that faith is uncertainty. Faith must incorporate a sense of doubt or it is no faith at all. He claims that doubt is not always present but is always an element of faith. In his reasoning, doubt proves faith. He speaks more of this doubt being an existential doubt, one that does not decide true or false but acts more as insecurity. Nobody can be sure of their ultimate concern and so uncertainty and doubt are always present. The reason this can be considered controversial is that Tillich argues that a church cannot act to quench doubt by calling it heretical; the churches place is to act as an entity which helps people to clear up their doubts. Having dogmas and creeds can easily lead to suppression of faith. Since faith necessarily contains doubt, any entity that demise doubt is not a true proponent of faith. He states that a community of faith should be a continuous risk because risk is a part of faith. In this sense, an ideal church would allow and encourage doubt.
To Tillich, truth of faith is different than truth in other things. He admits that there are two categories of certain knowledge, math and perception. Faith cannot be put into the category of certain knowledge but it also cannot be put into the category of uncertain knowledge. Faith is certain because we have a certain relation with something ultimate. Man knows this because without this relation we would not have faith. On the other hand, faith is uncertain because it is possible to have faith in the wrong thing (i.e. not the ultimate).
Tillich argues that the truth of faith does not conflict with reason or scientific truth unless it claims to be scientific truth. Reason and faith do not conflict. Instead, reason transcends itself in faith because it affirms the awareness of a presence of the ultimate reality. Reason is a precondition of faith in that is allows us to have acknowledged an ultimate concern. Faith also is independent of historical truth. He argues that faith can never be affirmed or denied by science, history or philosophy. This is because faith is always true because in that expresses a concern for the ultimate reality.
Basically he is saying that faith contains both truth and uncertainty. The synergy of these two ideas put faith into a category all its own. It is not like any other type of knowledge because it is not all certain nor is it all uncertain. Faith is both. Science is in a different realm of meaning from faith because faith is never to be taken literally which is why it is expressed in myths and symbols. Faith cannot guarantee actual fact which is what sets it apart from other kinds of knowledge like history which rely on careful observation. Faith interprets truth from the standpoint of ultimate concern but it never claims certainty. Philosophy can be differentiated from faith in the same way although the relationship is more complex. Philosophy tries to find the universal categories that being is experienced in. In this sense, philosophy also seeks the ultimate concern but expresses truth in a different way. Philosophical truth is expressed conceptually whereas religious truth is expressed symbolically. The major difference is that philosophical truths are expressed through the interfering factors of the observer. Symbolic truths are not.
All in all, science, history, and philosophy, can be thought of as ultimate concerns but in so being, they cannot be similar to faith which is a concern for the ultimate. They are all similar yet different. Faith is a realm of truth all its own.
