Edwin StößingerDie Theologiekritik von Hans Heinz Holz

Rezension

Edwin Stößinger hat in seinen beiden Dissertationen Werke von Hans Heinz Holz verarbeitet. Dessen Theologiekritik ist für Theologen wie auch Atheisten produktiv, sie bietet wertvolle Aspekte für den Dialog. Daher stellte sich Stößinger die Frage, ob und wie die theologischen Aussagen von Holz für eine theologische Monografie ertragreich sein könnten. In seinem Buch gibt dazu Stößinger fundierte und wohl begründete Antworten. […]

He saw himself as a representative of the materialist worldview. Nevertheless, he also dealt in a filigree way with views that stood in contrast to his attitude. He had discussions in student parishes and mentioned conversations with prominent theologians. He also thematised theological and idealistic positions in his writings, for example in his opus magnum on the problem history of dialectics. He did not miss the analysis of the extremely differentiated dialectical thinking in the interweaving of theology and philosophy in the Middle Ages. His proof of various foundations in the tectonics of philosophy and theology was by no means sufficient for him. In some cases, he also deepened the logical traceability of theological thinking with positive judgments. However, theological criticism was not at the center of his work.

Therefore, this monograph focuses on reconstructing key points of his critique of theology. Holz considered the mapping of theology to philosophy and the reverse process to be possible. The emphasis in this book is on his critique of the projection of poly- and monotheistic theology on philosophy. Rationally and arguing with strict logic, Holz encountered aporias, paradoxes, shifts in concepts, translation errors and irrational statements when projecting on philosophy, especially in Judeo-Christian dogma history.

The criticisms coolly presented by Holz can currently serve for the sophisticated self-clarification of one's own views and can be taken up as arguments when conducting demanding dialogues. Holz showed that such discussions do not have to take place in a heated atmosphere. This allows a contrast to a culture of conversation that is said to be the common line for so-called "new atheists".