the kurt wolf writing

7/23/2019 the kurt wolf writing

1/4

American Academy of Religion and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

merican cademy of Religion

Oxford University Press

[Humanistic and Scientific Knowledge of Religion: Their Social Context and Contrast]: CommentAuthor(s): Kurt H. WolffSource: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jun., 1970), pp. 173-175Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1461174Accessed: 06-10-2015 09:09 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 175.111.89.8 on Tue, 06 Oct 2015 09:09:49 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1461174http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1461174http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/4

COMMENT

173

open

mind;

not

everybody

will

therefore

have even

an initial chance

truly

to under-

stand and

really

to

penetrate

beyond

the

shining surfaceof things religious to their

essential core.

Only

he

will have that

chance,

and

only

he

should

engage

in

this

pursuit,

who

has rid himself of

the

pre-

vailing

pan-mechanicism,

and this is to

say,

of the

prevailing prejudices,

of our

epoch.

If

I

may

be

permitted

a

somewhat

pun-

gent

formulation,

I would

say

that

the

first and foremost

pre-condition

for

suc-

cessful work in the field of religious

studies

is a

revolutionary

act. That

way

lies the

great difficulty,

the

great

chal-

lenge,

and also the

great promise

of

the

science to which

we are

devoting

our

lives.

Comment

by

KURT

H.

WOLFF

Department f Sociology

Brandeis

University

The

title

of

ProfessorStark's

paper,

as it

appears

n

the

programs

f both

the

American

Academy

of

Religion

and the

Society

for the

Scientific

Study

of Reli-

gion,

is Humanistic and Scientific

Knowledge

of

Religion:

Their Social

Context

and

Contrast.

Before

we can relateProfessor

Stark's

paper

to its

title,

we must review what

I

take

to

be

its

major

theses:

(1)

The

core

of

religion

s

mystery

f

not

mysti-

cism.

(2)

In line

with,

or because

of,

the

fact that the

contemporary

United

Stateshasas its supreme uidingvalue

controlof the

physical

universe,

re-

ligion

is

sure

to

be

regarded

s

merely

a

marginal--one

might

almost

go

so

far

as

to

say

almost

an

illegitimate

henome-

non.

(3)

By

contrast,

the

social form

of

life

which we call

community

is

favorable

o the

development,

nd there-

fore

also the

appreciation,

f

religious

phenomena. 4) Only

he

who

has

rid

himself

of

the

prevailingpan-mechani-

cism

of

our

society

will

have

the

chance

ruly

to understandnd

really

to

penetrate

beyond

the

shining

surfaceof

things

religious

o their essential

core.

Thus,

the first

and

foremost

pre-condi-

tion

for successful

work in

the field

of

religious

studies s

a

revolutionary

ct.

What can we

infer from

these

theses

about

the

subject

matter

suggested

by

the

title of

Professor

Stark's

paper?

I

can

only

be tentative.

The

title

distinguishes

or contrasts humanistic and scientific

knowledge

of

religion.

Does

Professor

Stark mean to

say

that

if

knowledge

of

religion

is

humanistic it

is not

scientific,

and

if it

is scientific it

is

not

humanistic?

On the

basis

of what

I know

of

Professor

Stark's

work,

I

should rather

think

that

he

distinguishes

between

(1)

knowledge

of true

religion,

the

essence

or

core

of

religion--and such knowledge is not

only

scientific

but also

humanistic

and

(2) knowledge

of the

shining

surface

of

religion

-

and

such

knowledge

may

be

scientific but is not

humanistic.

The

social

context

of the first

kind

of

knowledge

is

Gemeinschaft;

f

the

second,

by

contrast,

Gesellschaft.

Yet

some

persons

can

liberate

themselves

from the

restrictions

of

Gesell-

schaft

and

by

a

revolutionary

act

gain

not

just

scientific

but

scientific-humanistic

knowledge

of

religion.

If

this

reading

is even

approximately

correct,

it

raises

a

number

of

questions.

The first

question

concerns

the

distinction

between the

two kinds

of

knowledge

of

religion.

Apparently,

it

is

not

just

a

matter of

knowledge

of

core

vs.

surface,

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

174

KURT H.

WOLFF

because

this would

refer to a difference

in

subject

matter

or

depth

only

and

hence

would

not

warrant

the contrast

between

humanistic and scientific. What is

rather

involved,

or

also

involved,

I

think,

is

a

distinction,

not

just

of

knowledge,

but

also

of attitude

or

approach,

such

that

the humanistic

attitude

is

commensurate

with

religion

or

adequate

to

it,

while

the

merely

scientific

one

is

not.

And what

makes

the

approach

to

religion

an ade-

quate

one?

Presumably

the

recognition

that

the core of

religion

is

mystery,

pos-

sibly

the

breakthrough

to the true

re-

ligious

idea of God as the

Absolutely

Other.

That is to

say,

what makes the

approach

o

religion

an

adequate

approach

is not

only

a

specific conception

of re-

ligion

but,

more

likely

than

not,

a

specific

religious

belief.

The

question

such a view

raises

concerns, first,

the

grounds

on

which

a humanistic

knowledge

of this

kind can be argued to be scientific and,

second,

the

grounds

-

the

same or differ-

ent ones

-

on which it can be

argued

to

be

humanistic.

Another

question

concerns

the

relations

between

the

social

contexts

of

the

knowl-

edge

of

religion.

Gemeinschaft

s

favor-

able to

humanistic,

Gesellschaft,

at

best,

to

merely

scientific

knowledge

of it. The

humanistic knowledge, we saw or in-

ferred

in

the

absence

of

evidence

to

the

contrary,

is

superior

to

purely

scientific

knowledge,

and this

suggests

that

Gemein-

schaft

s

superior

to

Gesellschaft.

Yet,

some

persons

who live in a

Gesellschaft

an

by

a

revolutionary

act

acquire

humanistic

knowledge

of

religion.

Professor

Stark

does

not

discuss the nature of

this

act,

but

I can

hardly

think it

amiss to

suppose

that it refers to a

religious

experience,

an

experience

of

religion

in

its

core,

per-

haps

the

experience

of

God as

the

Absolutely

Other. Yet

what is

the re-

lation

between

such an act or

experience

and the

society

in

which it

occurs?

Does

it in

any

way

contribute to mak-

ing

this

society

less of an

association

and

more of a

community?

If

so,

how?

If

not,

does

it

have

any

social

signifi-

cance,

or

is

it

simply good

in

itself?

If the latter, it is surely nothing to be-

little,

but it is

not so

surely

germane,

much less

relevant,

to the

topic

of Pro-

fessor

Stark's

paper.

Contrary

to what

Professor Stark

ap-

pears

to

hold,

his

conception

of

religion

is

not absolute

but

relative,

that

is,

selec-

tive. It

has no room for

religion

as a

social

institution or for the social

func-

tions of

religion,

which

may

be

unifying

or

divisive,

inspiring

or

stultifying,

refin-

ing

or

bestializing;

nor for the

social

con-

texts that

favor this social

function rather

than

that.

Consistent

with

such

a

selec-

tive

conception

of

religion

is

the

selec-

tivity

that

characterizes

Professor Stark's

understanding

of

the

two

social con-

texts,

community

and

association,

with

reference to which

he

discusses

the

mysterium remendum.More particularly,

in

regard

to

community,

selectivity

takes

the form of

romanticization;

in

regard

to

association,

that of

impatience,

hostility,

contempt.

Professor

Stark also has

failed to

argue

some

of

his

methodological

practices.

Thus,

the

only

clue he

gives

to the

ascertainment of a

society's

values is

the money it spendson their pursuit.The

question

whether this

is a

justifiable

pro-

cedure

is not

raised,

aside

from the

fact

that the

concept

of

value

remains

un-

analyzed.

But above

all,

society

is

treated

as

if it

were

homogeneous

and,

further-

more,

identical

with

its

government

or

the

powers

that

be.

Surely,

Professor

Stark

must be

aware that

there

is

opposi-

tion,

it

seems

increasing

opposition,

to

the

supreme guiding

value,

the

con-

trol of

the

universe

and,

we

shouldn't

forget

it,

of

quite

particular

parts

of it

such

as,

for

our own

association,

Vietnam,

Latin

America,

and

the

moon,

among

others.

Professor

Stark

condemns

the

one-sided

view of

man

as

creator,

which

must be

supplemented by

that

of



4/4

COMMENT

175

man

as

created,

as creature. But

it

seems

to me

that his own view

of man as

creator is

one-sided,

ignoring,

for

in-

stance, the tragedy in Icarus,Prometheus,

Faustus.

Thus

if,

as Professor

Stark

claims,

a

painful

shortcoming

of

modern

man

is his

impotent

way

of

dealing

with

tragedy

and

death,

Professor

Stark's failure to

show

an awareness of

such

tragedy

in

the idea

of

man the

creator

might suggest

that he more

nearly

exhibits than

analyzes

this

short-

coming

-

and

this itself is not far from

tragedy.

Community

is

conscious

of the

past,

society

is

not.

Professor Stark

treats

these

two

propositions

as

self-evident,

and

the

second also

as lamentable.

Being

self-

evident,

they

call

for no

explaining

or

demonstrating.

But this strikes me

as

hardly

a

sociologist's

procedure;

and

if

there

is

any

connection between

being

religious

and

being

charitable

and com-

passionate,

rather

than

withdrawing

into

contemplation

of the

mysterious,

then

this is not the attitude of a religious

person

either.

Really,

Professor

Stark

writes as if there were

no

protest,

no

rebellion

-

and

conspicuously

by

priests

and ministers and

rabbis,

too-

no dis-

content,

no

feeling

of

impotence,

no con-

fusion,

no

unhappiness,

no

longing,

no

despair,

nor,

for that

matter,

any

effort

to understand

by

careful

analyses

where

we are, how we got here, how we might

get

out of our

misery.

In

my

own

under-

standing

of

scientific and

humanistic

knowledge,

of

society,

history,

sociology,

religion,

even

in

my

absurdly

small

understanding

of

God

as the

Absolutely

Other,

I

reluctantly

come to the

painful

conclusion that

Professor Stark's

paper

has little that is

scientific,

humanistic,

or

religious.


Documents

the kurt wolf writing