Schleiermacher: On Religion

Schleiermacher's On Religion is a reaction to those scientifically minded folk who were carried away by the spirit of the "enlightenment" and felt that they must do away with religion. These "cultured despisers" are exactly the audience S had in mind when writing this piece. To get his point across, he demonstrates how his notion of religion has nothing to do with the empty superstitions with which religion is being charged. His argument is that whatever the despisers think is "religion" is simply a straw man that they themselves have constructed. Schleiermacher contends that true religion arises when one has an "intuition and feeling of the infinite." This is an experience that lets the individual realize that they are a part of something far greater than his or her self. This intuition would be akin to the color red realizing that it was simply just one infinitely small sliver of the rainbow. It is hard here to conclude whether this is some sort of mystical experience or if it is more logically mediated. I should note that S's lofty, romantic tone tends to blur this distinction. Whatever it may be, he goes on to state what it is not. What religion is not are metaphysics, ethics and social power structures. These, he writes, are the true enemies that the despisers are confronting and not this "intuition." He goes as far as to write that religion is not even something that can be linguistically delineated at all. Again, this may be in reference to a religious experience, but is probably suggesting something like recognizing both the immanence of infinity and then the absurd consequences of infinity. For example, individuality gets blurred to zero when considered in an infinite group. I mostly find this notion of intuition to be troublesome. Especially when S gets to chapter 4 and begins to explain how one person can share their intuition with others so that it acts as some primordial intuition that others will pick up on. This seems to me to be antithetical to his earlier claims about religion. If religion is outside of logic and words, why must religion be contained in logic and words? I do not think he ever sufficiently satisfies this paradox. It is clear that he believes one day there could be no church (some day beyond all time) because everyone will have religion in them, but he makes no effort to explain how this will happen and appears content that there will always need to be mediators. In a more broad, universally human perspective, this is a troublesome conclusion. Overall, I'm a big fan of Schleiermacher. Regardless of his own constraints, some of his passages ring out with so much beauty that it literally makes my heart beat heavily in my chest (and I'm not anywhere close to being Christian). This gets into the romantic style so deeply, it at times appears to be almost prose. Regardless if you care for S's ideas, you may at least have a good time reading them.

From back cover: "Friedrich Schleiermacher's "On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers' is a foundational text in modern religious thought. Written when its youthful author was deeply involved in German romanticism and the critique of Kant's moral and religious philosophy, the work defends the view of religion as rooted in intuition and feeling the universe and only secondarily in knowledge and deeds. It also argues for an understanding of Christianity as rooted in historical traditional, not in the generalized natural religion of the Deists and Enlightenment thinkers. This translation presents for the first time in English the original 1799 edition of the text. There is copious annotation, as well as an introduction that places the work in the context of early German romanticism, Kant criticism, the revival of Spinoza and Plato studies, and theories of literary criticism and of the physical sciences." *** Contents Include: Introduction: * 'On Religion' in Its Cultural Milieu * Form Kant to Romanticism * Analysis of the Argument * The Rhetoric of Religious Persuasion * Critical Issues in the Work * Revisions of the Work * The Edition of 1806 * The Edition of 1821 'ON RELIGION' * First Speech: Apology * Second Speech: On the Essence of Religion * Third Speech: On Self-Formation for Religion * Fourth Speech: On the Social Element in Religion; or, On Church and Priesthood * Fifth Speech: On the Religions

In this book, Schleiermacher wanted to revitalize the idea that human feeling is absolutely dependent on God. One who reads history in his era will find that something had disappeared from religious life because of subjective rationalism. I assume this is exactly the reason for Romantic movement. In the view of Friedrich Schleiermacher, romanticism was a movement of the rediscovery of feeling as the essence of religion. Feeling is the key idea of how someone internalizes the values, morality, and even the idea of God within himself. For Schleiermacher, science and knowledge which is based on rationality could not explain the essence of religion. Religion has nothing to do with the knowledge of nature. The knowledge of God, on the contrary, could not be understood in the frame of `cause and effect.' Religion always related to the infinite thing, and in order to understand it, one must use immediate feeling. Schleiermacher said, "to seek and to find this infinite and eternal factor in all that lives and moves...and to know life itself only in immediate feeling-that is religion." Schleiermacher denied science because it could not bring out the contemplation of the infinite. Science or knowledge of religion is not religion itself, and it obviously, cannot be, possibly on the same level with feeling or the contemplation of religion. It is very clear in his book that Schleiermacher wanted to put science and morality underneath religion. One could not understand any thing without religion. As a result, morality and all ethical systems have no meaning without religion. Briefly, it is impossible for a person to be moral or scientific without religion. After subjugating science, morality and even art, Schleiermacher redefined religion and its relation to the universe. He defined religion based on human feeling, even though it doesn't mean subjectivism. We feel all particular action, our being and life, only through the consciousness of God. The consciousness of God is a kind of "external circumstance" that makes all people have the same feeling. Thousands of people could feel the same religiosity aroused in the same manner because of that external circumstance. I found a unique idea in this book when he said: "Every particular religious organization has limited horizons. None, therefore, is able to embrace all; nor, accordingly, is any able to believe that nothing is to be seen beyond its own horizons." From this argument, Schleiermacher wanted to convince readers that difference of feeling is inevitable. Everyone, then, must be ready to see that there may be different views and experiences. Again, this can happen because "the quality of feeling" may be different. Schleiermacher stated: "Religion, however, doesn't for a moment desire to encapsulate all who have faith and feeling within a single faith or feeling. Its task is to develop sensitivity for the eternal unity of life's originating source among people whose capacity for religious experience is st

This book, written by Schleiermacher in 1799 at the height of his involvement with the early German Romantics, was considered one of the most provocative and intriguing reads of its day. It continues to be read today because it retains that provocative and intriguing character. In an attempt to respond to Enlightenment critiques of religion, Schleiermacher creates an entirely novel manner of thinking and speaking about religion. In this book it is possible to see the beginnings of his creative and controversial move to ground religion, not in metaphysics or morals, but rather in feeling (or what he later will call immediate self-consciousness). The ripples of this move are still apparent in Protestant theology today. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in tracing the development of modern theology back to its roots. The Crouter translation is particularly good, and it expertly renders the 18th-century language into fluid, clear prose.

I was required to read this book for a class and was completely blown away by it. Schleiermacher's concept of the spiritual nature of the world is immensely poetic and is the most beautiful depiction that I have read to date. His discussion of the idea of "cultural constructs" caused me to re-think many aspects of my own life, and the way that society and culture affect our daily living. I often reflect upon his words when I am swept up in the masses in the city. The beauty and joy that he expresses in life and the idea of truly living are splendid. In an era where religion and spirituality are all too much neglected, Schleiermacher causes us to think of why we think the way we do, and what the root of that thinking might be. His work could be considered a handbook for those who follow a mystical tradition, and his grace in manipulating the written word often rivals that of St. Augustine in his "Confessions." I believe this to be one of the most important and one of the most beautiful theological works for spiritually curious readers, as well as theological scholars.