This position is derived from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and is what, more than any other idea, makes possible the antagonism between science and religion. He also denies this process is in any way supernatural. My objection to Otto's thesis is his assertion that the numinous experience is a priori in character, "not to be derived from 'experience' or 'history.'" Put another way, the raw data from which we derive conceptual knowledge can be attained by non-empirical, non-sensory means. This does not mean that chronologically in a person's life other experiences, such as intellectual curiosity, may not occur first merely that the numinous apprehension of God is, ultimately, the one thing needful. Otto coined the word numinous (from the Latin numen, meaning sacred presence) to describe it. Everything else - doctrine, ritual and theological speculation - are reliant upon, and derived from this experience. The thesis of this book is that a sense of God's presence, with its attendant emotions of sacredness, wonderment and awe, is the fundamental starting point of genuine religion.
0 kommentar(er)
