[404]

LECTURE XXXII, March 6, 1956

Now here are two interesting questions. I will try to answer them:

QN: If religion^a cannot be defended on the object-subject level of reality, can there be such a being as apologetics?

PT: Now the word ''apologetics^b'' can have many meanings^c, and most Neo-Orthodox theologians^d are very suspicious of ANY kind of apologetics. I personally would say it depends on the APOLOGETICS. The word in itself is the highest possible word in theology--a biblical word, and a church-historical word. It means: answering. And if a Christian is not able to answer, then he shouldn’t try to make a theology. That is the one answer to it.

But now the next question is what KIND of apologetics? There the answer is: NOT an apologetic which tries to derive, out of the subject-object structure of reality, the existence of God^e, or immortality, or other things--this kind of apologetics is not only impossible but it is even an a priori negation of the idea of God, whatever the outcome of such arguments is. The analysis of reality can only lead to the QUESTION of God--which MEANS VERY MUCH because there is no question without a preceding answer; but it certainly does NOT mean a rational deduction of God out of the world of the finite in which subject-object structure prevails. So the only kind of apologetics^f which is possible seems to me the development of the question and to point out that the answers involved in the Christian tradition^g are REAL ANSWERS to REAL QUESTIONS. And this apologetic is nothing else than systematic theology^h.

Now this was the one [question]. The next question is a little bit too long, but I will try to do it:

QN (P.H.John): In his recent book, Icon and Idea, Sir Herbertⁱ Read says that the history of art^j and the history^k of ideas have hitherto been considered as independent aspects of human development, and priority was given to ideas. But he says that in reality the plastic image--or icon--always precedes