Schleiermacher - General

Question 1

liberalism

Answer 1

-	Naturalism 
o	Move away from miracles
-	Imminentism 
o	Moves towards pantheism
-	Humanism
-	Questioning access to absolute truth 
-	Questioning ecclesial authority
-	Overemphasising personal nature of moral and religious beliefs

Question 2

kant

Answer 2

• For Kant, subject/object differentiation is key as we cannot get beyond the phenomenal
  o Knowledge limited to the phenomenal
  o Discredits theology as a science
  o God-talk = relevant to morality
  o God = not an object of knowledge, but necessary postulate to practical reason
  o Transcendent God cannot be object of knowledge
  o Kant seemed to discredit ‘scientific’ theology (i.e., the interpretation of doctrines as knowledge – descriptions of objective reality).
  o He argued that God-talk belonged properly in the sphere of morals rather than in the sphere of knowledge.
  o Many theologians accepted Kant’s argument that a transcendent God could not be an immediate object of knowledge.
  o To the extent that they sought to maintain a place for theology as a discipline, they had to argue that God could be known indirectly.
  ♣ Knowledge of God must be indirect, since that which can be perceived directly is not transcendent, and so not divine.

Question 3

fleeting access to primal unity

Answer 3

• For Schleiermacher, we somehow have a fleeting access to primal unity of subject and object before division
  o But it is fleeting – it is gone by the time we begin to try and reason it
  o Pre-rational intuition but fleeting
  o The basis of every experience of the world
  o He is thinking within Kantian framework but trying to redevelop it
  o Romantic idea – S is reacting to Enlightenment whilst still playing by its rules
• Feeling = human ability and gives rise to religion
  o Pre-Kantian idea
  o Cannot know God through reason
  ♣ Kant = right about metaphysics but wrong about morality

Question 4

S and K

Answer 4

• S both agrees and disagrees with K
  o Religion = pre-rational intuition
  o Religion is not just moral and rational. For S, religion is pre-rational
  o Reason cannot give you access to God himself/the primal unity of subject/object
• S finds a way beyond K that does not ignore that K existed – wants to bring people to religion
  o All experience is grounded in the pre-rational but it is gone as soon as we try and think about it
  o We are thus once again reduced to subject/object distinction

Question 5

aim in writing

Answer 5

• Tension worth exploring = we’re talking about God yet S does not say that God is essential
• Aim = to allure others to religion
  o Apologetic work
  o Problem = apologetic work assumes others’ outlooks
  o Is this S in his own way of seeing things or is he trying to get people to reconsider religion
• Academic view of religion = reflective of time spent in UofBerlin. He defended theology as Wissenschaft

Question 6

who is he writing for

Answer 6

• Friends who shared Romantic outlook
• The liberal and educated
• Those who have rejected religion
• Creates tension: he depicts religion as accommodating and yet restricts its accessibility to the educated elite e.g. criticisms of French etc.

Question 7

developments in work

Answer 7

• ‘Church Dogmatics’ = lot more dogmatic

o speeches aim to convince that Christian faith is dogmatic

Question 8

dark side of romanticism - schl and pluralism

Answer 8

• link Romanticism to nationalism
• risk of generalising spirit of people
• S has developmental views of religion
  o Can say all views are valid
  o But, how does he adjudicate that in differentiation of religion
• Link to criticisms of the French etc.
• Major tension between developmental view and differentiation of religion
• Romanticism accepts Enlightenment but seeks to go beyond the purely rational – emergence of poetry etc. (reflected in style of writing)
• Odd religious elitism – the intellects have the capacity to recognise the pre-rational feeling

Question 9

criticism made by Barth

Answer 9

• S says he thinks that he is speaking of God but Barth thinks that he is actually speaking about humans
• Danger of that is that S’ God simply reflects his own image
• S’ work leads to rationalistic ideas – this is the danger of an anthropological starting point. Making God an idol