Religion without eternal life

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Schmitty,

Could you briefly explain the main ideas of Schleiermacher's view on religion? How do they relate to Christianity? Also, how widespread do you think his view has more or less been adopted in practice by people? How many of them call themselves Christian? Are there Christian denominations where these views are embraced or at least tolerated? Are there many people outside Christianity who hold to them?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I can try[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]. I'm getting this all from <u>On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers </u> in which the first two speeches are particularly applicable for an introduction to Schleiermacher. My knowledge doesn't extend well beyond those two speeches either.

Schleiermacher wrote in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Before and around this time in Germany and elsewhere in Europe there was a surge toward rationalism and the idea that all can be made clear. Accompanying this surge was extreme doubt in Christian doctrine and the idea of religion as a whole. Just to give you an idea of the kind of person Schleiermacher is writing to, here's Goethe's poem "Prometheus".

Whereas most theological work up till that point (and now too) discusses the contents of religion, i.e. specific doctrines, Schleiermacher began with the simple question: What is religion? To get to the answer, Schleiermacher begins with discussing what religion is not. He states that religion is not metaphysics or morals; it is not fear; it is not awe at the beauty of the universe. In speech two he writes: "Religion's essence is neither thinking nor acting, but intuition and feeling." That seems really vague and he does go on to refine "intuition" and "feeling" (for example feeling is very distinct from emotion), but one quote that I found that is particularly applicable to today's religious situation is that "religion does not strive to bring those who believe and feel under a single belief and a single feeling." Schleiermacher really stresses individuality in intuiting the universe. Another key part of Schleiermacher's theology is that it is organic. When we conceptualize the idea of God and the universe, we are often caught between two poles. On one side is the individual and on the other the universe. On one side is an ant and on the other side is a supernova lightyears away. On one side is the finite and on the other side is the infinite. Religion is the constant oscillation between these two outer limits.

So anyways, that's a brief introduction to Schleiermacher. The first few speeches were very well received and highly praised by the "cultured despisers." You may wonder where is Christianity in all this, and Schleiermacher goes into that more in the 3rd-5th speeches, which were not as well received by the rationalists. To answer your questions, Schleiermacher was definitely a Christian. I imagine his views have not been adopted much at all, but as he also writes, "Religion never appears in a pure state." Any religion that stresses the totality of everything would be tending toward his thought though (I'm thinking particularly of Pope John Paul II and his constant calls for solidarity as an example perhaps). I definitely can see people outside of Christianity embracing Schleiermacher's ideas, at least in the first two speeches. People who consider themselves spiritual instead of religious (free from dogma) could be seen to fall in that category.

[PairTheBoard]

Thanks Schmitty. After reading your reply I also read a little about him in Wikipedia. His view of intuition and "feeling" (with his technical definition of the word), sounds very similiar to what I've been talking about here as subjective experience. I was suprised to find out there is a whole theory on "Interpretation" called hermeneutics which his thought evidently had a significant impact on. Once again, his ideas in this area seem to agree with ones I've expressed here. I see that my common sense approach to reading the Bible, for example, is just the standard one described as the Hermeneutic Circle. It's the same general method for interpreting all sorts of things.

Here's a quote of Schleiermacher's on Religion from Wikipedia:


[ QUOTE ]
"Religion is the outcome neither of the fear of death, nor of the fear of God. It answers a deep need in man. It is neither a metaphysic, nor a morality, but above all and essentially an intuition and a feeling. ... Dogmas are not, properly speaking, part of religion: rather it is that they are derived from it. Religion is the miracle of direct relationship with the infinite; and dogmas are the reflection of this miracle. Similarly belief in God, and in personal immortality, are not necessarily a part of religion; one can conceive of a religion without God, and it would be pure contemplation of the universe; the desire for personal immortality seems rather to show a lack of religion, since religion assumes a desire to lose oneself in the infinite, rather than to preserve one's own finite self."


[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine there are those here who will say, "Does Not Compute" and continue on with their regular routine.

PairTheBoard