Rudolph Otto: The Idea of the Holy

Let's use this first week to get us all on the same page and as a template for our discussions.  In general, this blog is not meant to be a summary of the reading.  The summary of the reading is to be completed 9pm the day before class, and is to be emailed to the professor and Discussion Leader.  I will then look over the summary and give you comments that will helpfully make this blog post stronger.

So what is this blog post for?  It can be used for any number of things:

(1) to supply some background info to help everyone make sense of the context and intent of the reading
(2) To uncover and explain some of the possible consequences from the reading.  i.e. If the reading is true....so what? (the so what questions always important in philosophy)
(3) To unpack/explain some of the difficult concepts or ideas present in the text that require more than just the summary to understand
**(4) To pick some of the ideas/themes from this reading and connect them either to other readings or to stories, articles, discussions in popular culture.  (For instance, when we get to Miracles, you can relate the discussion to many contemporary examples of apparent miracles and how the readings help us make sense of whether these are miracles or not).

In general, I would like you to try to do 2 or maybe 3 of the above 4 ideas (in approximately 500-700 words.  But if you pick #2 or #4, that might be enough for the blog post.  So here is a model with elements from 1-2 (and is 501 words).  We will discuss in detail in class many of Otto's more difficult consequences and how this connects to our own understanding of religion.


(1)
Otto writes the Idea of the Holy in a time when scientific advancements have threatened to 'explain away' God and religious belief.  In some ways, this is not that different than certain trends in our own day.  Otto does not ignore these claims, nor does he ignore challenges to established religions and religious beliefs.  Instead, he suggests that the 'core' insight or idea behind religion/spirituality/faith, whatever you would like to call it lies elsewhere.  In this, he follows (and sometimes critiques) the ideas of Friedrich Schleiermacher, and  (later) Mircea Eliade  in focusing on the experiential elements and core feelings at the core of all religions.  So Otto does not ignore 'rational' concerns with religion, he simply claims that religious faith and practice is ultimately a matter of feeling, not belief.


(2)
Rudolph Otto offers us a different way to enter into questions concerning the rationality/reasonableness of faith, religious belief, practice and many of the other questions at the center of the Philosophy of Religion.  In this, he breaks from the traditional arguments for or against God's existence, for or against the existence of miracles, the problem of evil, the reasonableness of faith (all topics we will explore), and gets us to focus on our feelings.  He pointedly says, if you have not had a religious experience, you should stop reading his text.  Why?  Because you won't know what he is talking about.  But if you have had a religious experience, even if you are not religious, are an atheist, etc., then you can follow along.  And what is a religious experience?  The experience of "The Holy", what he calls the numinous.  And this is marked by a feelings he calls mysterium tremendum (an experience of a tremendous mystery; one that invokes feelings of awe and dread and the Holy's profound power).  But we can always ask, so what?

Otto says that the "so what" is profound consequences in how we understand the nature of religion.  There is nothing wrong with rational frameworks and Creeds and beliefs underlying one's religious views, but Otto thinks that ultimately the source of all religions is a certain feeling.  This means that despite very different religious views and religious beliefs, there might be a core experience at the base of all of them (or some of them).  This opens both the door to religious ecumenism but also to what has often been called Perennialism. Perennialism is the view that suggests despite apparent diversity among religions, their might be a shared insight or truth to which all (true) religions are grounded in.  The reason that there are differences in faith is because people have interpreted things differently in different cultures and different backgrounds.  Otto's view does not require Perennialism, but it leaves the door open for it.  It could be the case that just one religious view is correct (Otto's idea for the numinous is generally grounded in his own Protestant background), but Otto is trying to establish a new way to understand and explain religions.

This raises several big questions: 

Is Otto's account of the numinous and the mysterium tremendum accurate?  For those who have had religious feelings and religious experiences, does it map onto Otto's account?  Why or why not?

What is it to fully explain religion?  Are there dangers to explaining (or explaining away) religion and religious belief?

What is the core or nature to religious experience (and by extension religion)?