What do you think?
Rate this book
The Sources of Religious Insight: With a new introduction by Frank M. Oppenheim
Long awaited in paperback, this volume probes the neuralgic point in the philosophy of religion. Royce's essays aim at religious unity and emphasize communal religious experience based on a faith shared by a community's members through their authentic loyalty and deeds of service.
- GenresPhilosophy
309 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1912
2 people are currently reading
53 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 18, 2019
Taking Reason Religiously
When intuitions about spirit are transformed into doctrinal commands, religion is reduced to a matter of tribal identity. When these same intuitions are denied a social existence, religion is reduced to a travesty of mistaken identity. Allowing religion to be what it is without forcing it into polemical categories is the main purpose of The Sources of Religious Insight. It is not so much a philosophy of religion as it is a religious appreciation of reason.
‘Be reasonable’, is the frustrated plea of many a spouse, or friend, or work colleague when confronted by the apparent intransigence of a position we find problematic. ‘Reason’ is a standard we invoke in order to overcome all false views due to everything from prejudice to error. Reason, we think, solves problems. The fact that our exhortation is not just persistently ignored but also turned right round on us to ‘Be reasonable’ in return might suggest a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of the term.
The fact is that no one knows what constitutes reason at any moment. It has no fixed definition in daily life. It might mean ‘Be logical’, but rarely do any of us know the subtleties of Aristotelian syllogism. Or it might mean ‘Be sensible’, meaning look to your own experience or that of others to confirm what needs to be done. But, of course, no situation is identical to any previous; there are always good reasons why ‘this time’ is different. Or it might mean ‘Be less selfish’, in other words, stop wanting whatever it us you do want so we can stop this argument. This response may work sometimes with children but even then only when accompanied by the threat of coercive power.
Perhaps science knows something about reason that the rest of us don’t. The problem here is that the way science is conducted in, say, astrophysics, is very different from the way it’s conducted in molecular biology. ‘Good scientific method’ is not something either scientists or philosophers of science agree on. And the history of science shows that differences in what competent scientists have done from one period to another are often dramatic. To further complicate the mix, many, perhaps a majority of, scientific advances in some disciplines are completely accidental, the result of fortunate mistakes rather than reasoned science.
Royce’s central point in The Sources of Religious Insight is that it is a natural and universal religious skill or instinct that is the key to what we mean by reason. In this light, the book is rather precisely mis-titled and might better have been called The Religious Sources of Reason. With his typical delicacy in thought, Royce makes a thought- inducing, not to say eminently reasonable, argument.
For Royce “Insight is knowledge that makes us aware of many facts in one whole...” Insight is neither a deduction from first principles; nor can it be generated from the repetitive events of experience. Insight is the ability as well as the result of perceiving a ‘form’. Insight allows us to notice that a myriad of mechanical parts in fact constitute something called an automobile. More abstractly, insight establishes the existence of something called ‘the economy’, and ‘the planetary system’, or ‘the family’. Insight even creates a recognition of things as distinct parts of larger wholes, like atoms, and quarks, and individual human beings.
Royce then goes on to specify the nature of a religious insight, or more particularly what he considers, plausibly, the central and universal insight of religion: the need for salvation. Salvation from or for what? Royce says from our infinite and infinitely destructive neediness, “from our insatiably changing desires.” The positive dimension of salvation is the achievement of harmony, a theme which Royce has consistently developed in all of his philosophical writing.
By harmony Royce does not mean the establishment of some abstract oneness with the universe in a state of mystical transcendence. Rather he means the conception of the precise and concrete conditions that would allow us, and our fellow-man, to achieve all our aspirations without qualification, compromise or diminishment. Obviously this is an ideal state, and not one that can be achieved factually. The point of harmony is to recognise the ideal to be worked toward, a teleological focus which is as relevant and meaningful to my neighbours, all of them, as it is to me.
The common term for religious insight is ‘revelation’. Revelation is a personal phenomenon despite its more or less universal occurrence. “We are prone,” Royce says, “to live many lives, seldom noting how ill-harmonised they are... based on mutually inconsistent plans... except during moments of insight.” These are moments of revelation in which are own lives can be seen as a whole, in which a form can be discerned, even if only in vague outline. And this form is constituted not just by the different elements of my own personality with its diverse, incompatible aims, but also our place in the diversity of social systems in which we participate - familial, social, political, economic, and religious.
These moments of “wider vision” have two vitally important consequences. In the first instance they provide the functional definition of reason in terms of both aims and the pattern of life that incorporate and facilitate the achievement of these aims. Secondly, this ‘ruling form’ takes on a compelling transcendent significance, a guide for one’s life, which may never rise above the level of the unconscious, but which nonetheless has substantial psychic and emotional force. In Jungian psychology, such a vision of order is called ‘integration’. The equivalent religious term is ‘God’s Will’.
That God’s Will should be the source of reason is therefore a very reasonable conclusion in Royce’s philosophy. It is also, among other things, an assurance that salvation, the resolution of infinitely conflicting desires, is possible. “The unreasonable person is the person who can see but one thing at a time... who can grasp but one idea when a synthesis is required. The reasonable man is capable of synthesis.” Synthesis is “the viewing of many facts, or principles, or relations in some sort of unity or wholeness.” In other words, reason is not opposed to intuition but to narrowness, the inability, or more likely unwillingness, to see the forest for the trees.
There is only one method that is effective in overcoming narrowness; that is the adoption of the point of view of another as completely as one adopts one’s own - not to the exclusion of one’s own, but in addition to one’s own. This is an exercise of reason, the ability to perceive many facts in their unity. It is also the method of salvation. Insight reveals that some super-personal existence is real. Even to deny the truth of thus insight is to presume its validity. One may choose to call this reality ’spiritual’ but this does not reduce the reality of what is designated.
That there is no such thing as a ‘final Insight’ should be obvious. Not only is insight multiplied by the point of view of every human being living or ever having lived, but since insight provokes insight, there is a potentially infinite ‘feedback loop’ that continues to expand human horizons without any limit. Insights will continue to proliferate until the end, if such a thing is possible, of the universe. As it does so, reason approximates more and more closely to God’s Will, or in more secular terminology, truth.
Reason is thus the source of religious insight, but equally, religious insight is the foundation of reason. “The insight of the reason not only points out a heaven that overarches us, but also reveals an influence that invariably transforms us.” Remarkably, Royce concludes with a most pointedly ethical observation and command as antidotes to much of the philosophical nihilism produced during the 20th century: Heaven, not Hell, is other people; and God is revealed in and through them.
So if you, like me, find Richard Dawkins and your Evangelical cousins from Alabama equally creepy, yet have closet religious tendencies, this may be something for you.
Postscript: These journalistic pieces were pointed out to me by Robin Friedman and suggest that there is mileage left in Royce’s philosophy yet:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/op...
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2...
https://eu.desertsun.com/story/opinio...
When intuitions about spirit are transformed into doctrinal commands, religion is reduced to a matter of tribal identity. When these same intuitions are denied a social existence, religion is reduced to a travesty of mistaken identity. Allowing religion to be what it is without forcing it into polemical categories is the main purpose of The Sources of Religious Insight. It is not so much a philosophy of religion as it is a religious appreciation of reason.
‘Be reasonable’, is the frustrated plea of many a spouse, or friend, or work colleague when confronted by the apparent intransigence of a position we find problematic. ‘Reason’ is a standard we invoke in order to overcome all false views due to everything from prejudice to error. Reason, we think, solves problems. The fact that our exhortation is not just persistently ignored but also turned right round on us to ‘Be reasonable’ in return might suggest a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of the term.
The fact is that no one knows what constitutes reason at any moment. It has no fixed definition in daily life. It might mean ‘Be logical’, but rarely do any of us know the subtleties of Aristotelian syllogism. Or it might mean ‘Be sensible’, meaning look to your own experience or that of others to confirm what needs to be done. But, of course, no situation is identical to any previous; there are always good reasons why ‘this time’ is different. Or it might mean ‘Be less selfish’, in other words, stop wanting whatever it us you do want so we can stop this argument. This response may work sometimes with children but even then only when accompanied by the threat of coercive power.
Perhaps science knows something about reason that the rest of us don’t. The problem here is that the way science is conducted in, say, astrophysics, is very different from the way it’s conducted in molecular biology. ‘Good scientific method’ is not something either scientists or philosophers of science agree on. And the history of science shows that differences in what competent scientists have done from one period to another are often dramatic. To further complicate the mix, many, perhaps a majority of, scientific advances in some disciplines are completely accidental, the result of fortunate mistakes rather than reasoned science.
Royce’s central point in The Sources of Religious Insight is that it is a natural and universal religious skill or instinct that is the key to what we mean by reason. In this light, the book is rather precisely mis-titled and might better have been called The Religious Sources of Reason. With his typical delicacy in thought, Royce makes a thought- inducing, not to say eminently reasonable, argument.
For Royce “Insight is knowledge that makes us aware of many facts in one whole...” Insight is neither a deduction from first principles; nor can it be generated from the repetitive events of experience. Insight is the ability as well as the result of perceiving a ‘form’. Insight allows us to notice that a myriad of mechanical parts in fact constitute something called an automobile. More abstractly, insight establishes the existence of something called ‘the economy’, and ‘the planetary system’, or ‘the family’. Insight even creates a recognition of things as distinct parts of larger wholes, like atoms, and quarks, and individual human beings.
Royce then goes on to specify the nature of a religious insight, or more particularly what he considers, plausibly, the central and universal insight of religion: the need for salvation. Salvation from or for what? Royce says from our infinite and infinitely destructive neediness, “from our insatiably changing desires.” The positive dimension of salvation is the achievement of harmony, a theme which Royce has consistently developed in all of his philosophical writing.
By harmony Royce does not mean the establishment of some abstract oneness with the universe in a state of mystical transcendence. Rather he means the conception of the precise and concrete conditions that would allow us, and our fellow-man, to achieve all our aspirations without qualification, compromise or diminishment. Obviously this is an ideal state, and not one that can be achieved factually. The point of harmony is to recognise the ideal to be worked toward, a teleological focus which is as relevant and meaningful to my neighbours, all of them, as it is to me.
The common term for religious insight is ‘revelation’. Revelation is a personal phenomenon despite its more or less universal occurrence. “We are prone,” Royce says, “to live many lives, seldom noting how ill-harmonised they are... based on mutually inconsistent plans... except during moments of insight.” These are moments of revelation in which are own lives can be seen as a whole, in which a form can be discerned, even if only in vague outline. And this form is constituted not just by the different elements of my own personality with its diverse, incompatible aims, but also our place in the diversity of social systems in which we participate - familial, social, political, economic, and religious.
These moments of “wider vision” have two vitally important consequences. In the first instance they provide the functional definition of reason in terms of both aims and the pattern of life that incorporate and facilitate the achievement of these aims. Secondly, this ‘ruling form’ takes on a compelling transcendent significance, a guide for one’s life, which may never rise above the level of the unconscious, but which nonetheless has substantial psychic and emotional force. In Jungian psychology, such a vision of order is called ‘integration’. The equivalent religious term is ‘God’s Will’.
That God’s Will should be the source of reason is therefore a very reasonable conclusion in Royce’s philosophy. It is also, among other things, an assurance that salvation, the resolution of infinitely conflicting desires, is possible. “The unreasonable person is the person who can see but one thing at a time... who can grasp but one idea when a synthesis is required. The reasonable man is capable of synthesis.” Synthesis is “the viewing of many facts, or principles, or relations in some sort of unity or wholeness.” In other words, reason is not opposed to intuition but to narrowness, the inability, or more likely unwillingness, to see the forest for the trees.
There is only one method that is effective in overcoming narrowness; that is the adoption of the point of view of another as completely as one adopts one’s own - not to the exclusion of one’s own, but in addition to one’s own. This is an exercise of reason, the ability to perceive many facts in their unity. It is also the method of salvation. Insight reveals that some super-personal existence is real. Even to deny the truth of thus insight is to presume its validity. One may choose to call this reality ’spiritual’ but this does not reduce the reality of what is designated.
That there is no such thing as a ‘final Insight’ should be obvious. Not only is insight multiplied by the point of view of every human being living or ever having lived, but since insight provokes insight, there is a potentially infinite ‘feedback loop’ that continues to expand human horizons without any limit. Insights will continue to proliferate until the end, if such a thing is possible, of the universe. As it does so, reason approximates more and more closely to God’s Will, or in more secular terminology, truth.
Reason is thus the source of religious insight, but equally, religious insight is the foundation of reason. “The insight of the reason not only points out a heaven that overarches us, but also reveals an influence that invariably transforms us.” Remarkably, Royce concludes with a most pointedly ethical observation and command as antidotes to much of the philosophical nihilism produced during the 20th century: Heaven, not Hell, is other people; and God is revealed in and through them.
So if you, like me, find Richard Dawkins and your Evangelical cousins from Alabama equally creepy, yet have closet religious tendencies, this may be something for you.
Postscript: These journalistic pieces were pointed out to me by Robin Friedman and suggest that there is mileage left in Royce’s philosophy yet:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/op...
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2...
https://eu.desertsun.com/story/opinio...
March 14, 2023
Josiah Royce (1855-1916), one of the first American philosophers, has largely disappeared from view. He started as a student of pragmatist William James, but then clearly went his own way, reconnecting with the idealistic tradition. This is also evident from this publication, the result of 7 lectures that Royce gave in 1911. In it he quotes William James several times, especially his The Varieties of Religious Experience. According to James, religion is primarily an individual experience, not a social one, as the French sociologist Emile Durkheim had argued. Royce contradicts that: individual experiences are certainly important, but the whole domain of the social is at least as important. Rightly so.
What will come as a shock to many believers is that Royce firmly rejects the importance of the factor of revelation or mystical experience. But he does this mainly on logical-philosophical grounds, and rightly so. Following his train of thought, it will not come as a surprise that Royce's strongest emphasis is that reason can also be an important source of religious insight. “Reason is the power to see widely and steadily and connectedly,” he writes. Insight into the greater context is the pre-eminent way for him to arrive at the truth, thus connecting with the divine (in the very general sense of the word), and also inspiring to act. To me this seems like an absolutely valid reasoning, corresponding with the etymological background of the word 'religion', in the sense of what connects (< Latin religere).
But at the same time it exposes a weakness in Royce's argument: he looks at things very cerebrally, which is natural for a philosopher, but he runs the risk of covering only part of the human experience. To begin with, Royce has limited the basis of what religious experiences are. For him, the religious experience is the insight people have into their own failings, and in general into the ‘human condition’. Inevitably they link this with the desire for salvation, a salvation that can only come from something super/out-of-human. In my opinion, this starting point almost automatically brings Royce to his views on the rationalist input. In a sense, he performs a classic procedure of reductionism, in order to be able to easily prove his rationalist thesis.
Another weakness is the way Royce presents his train of thoughts: these are lectures, so the accessibility in itself is quite high. But this is a text that is more than a century old, and that is also noticeable in the sometimes archaic turns of phrase, and the still very complicated reasoning. Royce is also extremely careful, clearly to spare his audience, and that also sometimes makes for very roundabout reasoning. In short: this is a very interesting text on a really relevant subject, but I'm afraid it has some deficiencies.
What will come as a shock to many believers is that Royce firmly rejects the importance of the factor of revelation or mystical experience. But he does this mainly on logical-philosophical grounds, and rightly so. Following his train of thought, it will not come as a surprise that Royce's strongest emphasis is that reason can also be an important source of religious insight. “Reason is the power to see widely and steadily and connectedly,” he writes. Insight into the greater context is the pre-eminent way for him to arrive at the truth, thus connecting with the divine (in the very general sense of the word), and also inspiring to act. To me this seems like an absolutely valid reasoning, corresponding with the etymological background of the word 'religion', in the sense of what connects (< Latin religere).
But at the same time it exposes a weakness in Royce's argument: he looks at things very cerebrally, which is natural for a philosopher, but he runs the risk of covering only part of the human experience. To begin with, Royce has limited the basis of what religious experiences are. For him, the religious experience is the insight people have into their own failings, and in general into the ‘human condition’. Inevitably they link this with the desire for salvation, a salvation that can only come from something super/out-of-human. In my opinion, this starting point almost automatically brings Royce to his views on the rationalist input. In a sense, he performs a classic procedure of reductionism, in order to be able to easily prove his rationalist thesis.
Another weakness is the way Royce presents his train of thoughts: these are lectures, so the accessibility in itself is quite high. But this is a text that is more than a century old, and that is also noticeable in the sometimes archaic turns of phrase, and the still very complicated reasoning. Royce is also extremely careful, clearly to spare his audience, and that also sometimes makes for very roundabout reasoning. In short: this is a very interesting text on a really relevant subject, but I'm afraid it has some deficiencies.
March 4, 2025
Josiah Royce And The Invisible Church
Josiah Royce (1855 - 1916) was a great American philosopher in the idealist tradition whose work has been overshadowed by that of his colleague and dear friend at Harvard, William James. I recently [2007] had the good fortune to attend an academic conference at the Harvard Divinity School with the theme "Pragmatism and Idealism in Dialogue: James and Royce 100 years later" which explored the close relationship of the work of these two thinkers. Royce was raised in frontier California as an evangelical Christian and, although he abandoned this particular creed in adult life, he remained preoccupied with religious questions and with the Christian heritage of his youth. Royce's "The Sources of Religious Insight" (1912) consists of seven lectures delivered at Lake Forest College, Illinois. Royce said that the "Sources" "contains the whole sense of me in a brief compass". And the Royce scholar, Frank Oppenheim S.J. has written in his book "Reverence for the Relations of Life" (2005 at p. 265) that the "Sources" "constitutes one of the most valuable yet tragically neglected works of the twentieth century."
The Sources is written in an accessible, non-technical style that tends to mask the complexity of its thought. Royce makes use of stories and anecdotes, historical figures, homely examples, poetry, and the popular literature of his day. Royce characterizes religious life as concerned with the salvation of man. The idea of salvation means, for Royce, that there is some end or aim of human life that is far more important and fundamental than other aims and that people live in great danger of missing this goal by devoting themselves to trivialities. (p. 12) Royce endeavors to study "insight into the way of salvation and into those objects whereof the knowledge conduces to salvation." (p. 9). The "Sources" is much less based upon a Christian approach to religion than is Royce's subsequent book, "The Problem of Christianity." Royce disclaims any doctrinal teaching. This gives the "Sources" a much broader scope than the "Problem" even though it does not show the influence of the thought of Charles Peirce and the possible curtailment of Royce's idealistic tendencies that are apparent in the latter work.
Much of the "Sources" can be viewed as amplification and modification of the project William James began in his "The Varieties of Religious Experience" (1902). In the "Varieties" James identified individual private experience, the experience of a person "alone with the divine" as the fundamental religious attitude. In accordance with his pragmatism, James believed the value of this experience could be measured in terms of its fruits for life, rather than by abstract considerations of truth and falsity.
In the "Sources", Royce agrees with James about the experiential, personal character of religion. He also agrees, to a point, with James's emphasis on pragmatism and the individual will. But Royce finds James's approach insufficient. He proceeds in the "Sources" to identify seven sources of religious insight: 1. the individual in his solitude, as identified by James, 2 social community, 3. reason, 4. will, 5. loyalty, 6. responses to certain forms of evil and sorrow in human life, 7. the unity of spirit and the individual church. (Oppenheim discusses these factors at p. 258 of "Reinventing Pragmatism".)
Royce has much to say about each of these factors. The most striking difficulty for the modern reader, and the point of greatest divergence from James, lies in Royce's consideration of reason and in his attempt to construct a source of religion through an argument for the philosophy of absolute idealism. Royce's philosophy culminates in what he calls the "Religion of Loyalty" which combines individualism and communalism, ethics and religion to the service of "the spiritual unity of all the worlds of reasonable beings." (p. 205) Individuals may be devoted to different causes, in terms of their countries, families, and work and to different religions - or to no formal religion at all. But through loyalty to the good and a willingness to respect the facially diverging goods of others, individuals may reach an understanding of the bases of the religious search.
In his final chapter, Royce distinguishes the visible church - the community of believers in an established religious tradition - from the invisible church which he describes as the `spiritual brotherhood of the loyal." (p. 282) Membership in the invisible church requires tolerance for the individual loyalties of others which we do not share and an attempt to further their just loyalties as well as one's own. There is an ultimate unity among all believers in the good, regardless of their superficial differences. Loyalty, for Royce, "implies genuine faith in the abiding and supreme unity of the spirit." (p. 297)
There is a great deal to be learned about religion from this wonderful book as it shows a fallible humanity in quest of the transcendent. Royce does not attempt to foist a creed upon his readers but rather to help provide a basis in which people may come to specifically religious conclusions of their own. As Royce exhorts at the end of the "Sources", "seek insight where it is to be found."
Robin Friedman
Josiah Royce (1855 - 1916) was a great American philosopher in the idealist tradition whose work has been overshadowed by that of his colleague and dear friend at Harvard, William James. I recently [2007] had the good fortune to attend an academic conference at the Harvard Divinity School with the theme "Pragmatism and Idealism in Dialogue: James and Royce 100 years later" which explored the close relationship of the work of these two thinkers. Royce was raised in frontier California as an evangelical Christian and, although he abandoned this particular creed in adult life, he remained preoccupied with religious questions and with the Christian heritage of his youth. Royce's "The Sources of Religious Insight" (1912) consists of seven lectures delivered at Lake Forest College, Illinois. Royce said that the "Sources" "contains the whole sense of me in a brief compass". And the Royce scholar, Frank Oppenheim S.J. has written in his book "Reverence for the Relations of Life" (2005 at p. 265) that the "Sources" "constitutes one of the most valuable yet tragically neglected works of the twentieth century."
The Sources is written in an accessible, non-technical style that tends to mask the complexity of its thought. Royce makes use of stories and anecdotes, historical figures, homely examples, poetry, and the popular literature of his day. Royce characterizes religious life as concerned with the salvation of man. The idea of salvation means, for Royce, that there is some end or aim of human life that is far more important and fundamental than other aims and that people live in great danger of missing this goal by devoting themselves to trivialities. (p. 12) Royce endeavors to study "insight into the way of salvation and into those objects whereof the knowledge conduces to salvation." (p. 9). The "Sources" is much less based upon a Christian approach to religion than is Royce's subsequent book, "The Problem of Christianity." Royce disclaims any doctrinal teaching. This gives the "Sources" a much broader scope than the "Problem" even though it does not show the influence of the thought of Charles Peirce and the possible curtailment of Royce's idealistic tendencies that are apparent in the latter work.
Much of the "Sources" can be viewed as amplification and modification of the project William James began in his "The Varieties of Religious Experience" (1902). In the "Varieties" James identified individual private experience, the experience of a person "alone with the divine" as the fundamental religious attitude. In accordance with his pragmatism, James believed the value of this experience could be measured in terms of its fruits for life, rather than by abstract considerations of truth and falsity.
In the "Sources", Royce agrees with James about the experiential, personal character of religion. He also agrees, to a point, with James's emphasis on pragmatism and the individual will. But Royce finds James's approach insufficient. He proceeds in the "Sources" to identify seven sources of religious insight: 1. the individual in his solitude, as identified by James, 2 social community, 3. reason, 4. will, 5. loyalty, 6. responses to certain forms of evil and sorrow in human life, 7. the unity of spirit and the individual church. (Oppenheim discusses these factors at p. 258 of "Reinventing Pragmatism".)
Royce has much to say about each of these factors. The most striking difficulty for the modern reader, and the point of greatest divergence from James, lies in Royce's consideration of reason and in his attempt to construct a source of religion through an argument for the philosophy of absolute idealism. Royce's philosophy culminates in what he calls the "Religion of Loyalty" which combines individualism and communalism, ethics and religion to the service of "the spiritual unity of all the worlds of reasonable beings." (p. 205) Individuals may be devoted to different causes, in terms of their countries, families, and work and to different religions - or to no formal religion at all. But through loyalty to the good and a willingness to respect the facially diverging goods of others, individuals may reach an understanding of the bases of the religious search.
In his final chapter, Royce distinguishes the visible church - the community of believers in an established religious tradition - from the invisible church which he describes as the `spiritual brotherhood of the loyal." (p. 282) Membership in the invisible church requires tolerance for the individual loyalties of others which we do not share and an attempt to further their just loyalties as well as one's own. There is an ultimate unity among all believers in the good, regardless of their superficial differences. Loyalty, for Royce, "implies genuine faith in the abiding and supreme unity of the spirit." (p. 297)
There is a great deal to be learned about religion from this wonderful book as it shows a fallible humanity in quest of the transcendent. Royce does not attempt to foist a creed upon his readers but rather to help provide a basis in which people may come to specifically religious conclusions of their own. As Royce exhorts at the end of the "Sources", "seek insight where it is to be found."
Robin Friedman
July 24, 2020
مصادر البصيرة الدينية
جوزايا رويس
.....................
يقع الكتاب في أقل من مائتي صفحة، وهو عبارة عن تجميع لسبع محاضرات ألقاها المؤلف في أوقات متفرقة تدور كلها حول البصيرة الدينية والمشكلة الدينية والخبرة الفردية في التجربة الدينية.
المحاضرة الأولي: المشكلة الدينية والفرد الإنساني، تحدث فيها عن البصيرة الدينية ومعناها، وتعريف الدين وغرضه الأساسي وهو تحقيق الخلاص الروحي للإنسان وتحقيق المعني للحياة الإنسانية. كما تحدث عن الخبرة الفردية والنور الباطني في إدراك البصيرة الدينية.
المحاضرة الثانية: الخبرتان الفردية والاجتماعية بوصفهما مصدرين للبصيرة الدينية، يتحدث فيه عن دور الخبرة الفردية في إدراك وفهم العقيدة الدينية، كما يتحدث عن دور الخبرات الاجتماعية ودور البيئة الاجتماعية في توجيه الفرد نحو الخبرات الدينية. كما تحدث عن الدوافع الطبيعية والإنسانية للدين. تحدث أيضا عن الوعي الاجتماعي واستحالة ؟أن يكون وحده منفردا ببناء البصيرة الدينية للإنسان.
المحاضرة الثالثة: دور العقل، هل يكفي العقل منفردا بالقدرة علي حسم موضوع البصيرة الدينية؟ طبعا يري الكاتب أن ذلك غير ممكن، رغم اعتراضات الكثيرين من أصحاب المذهب الحدسي الذين يرون أن الحدس مهم جدا للبصيرة الدينية، وأن العقل كمصدر للخبرة بعيد تماما عن فكرة البصيرة الدينية.
المحاضرة الرابعة: العالم والإرادة، أثار فيه الاعتراضات التي قامت ضد العقل والتي تري عدم فائدته في الحياة وفشله في حل مشكلة الخلاص الروحي للإنسان.
المحاضرة الخامسة: دين الولاء، سجل فيه الكاتب اعتراضات علي كل مصادر البصيرة الدينية السابقة؛ لأنها لا تسهم بصورة كافية في وضع أساس لدين قوي وإيجابي وحيوي.
الكتاب في مجمله ممل ولا يقدم شيء جديد، ولا أظن أن القاريء العادي قد يري فيه شيء جديد لا يعرفه.
جوزايا رويس
.....................
يقع الكتاب في أقل من مائتي صفحة، وهو عبارة عن تجميع لسبع محاضرات ألقاها المؤلف في أوقات متفرقة تدور كلها حول البصيرة الدينية والمشكلة الدينية والخبرة الفردية في التجربة الدينية.
المحاضرة الأولي: المشكلة الدينية والفرد الإنساني، تحدث فيها عن البصيرة الدينية ومعناها، وتعريف الدين وغرضه الأساسي وهو تحقيق الخلاص الروحي للإنسان وتحقيق المعني للحياة الإنسانية. كما تحدث عن الخبرة الفردية والنور الباطني في إدراك البصيرة الدينية.
المحاضرة الثانية: الخبرتان الفردية والاجتماعية بوصفهما مصدرين للبصيرة الدينية، يتحدث فيه عن دور الخبرة الفردية في إدراك وفهم العقيدة الدينية، كما يتحدث عن دور الخبرات الاجتماعية ودور البيئة الاجتماعية في توجيه الفرد نحو الخبرات الدينية. كما تحدث عن الدوافع الطبيعية والإنسانية للدين. تحدث أيضا عن الوعي الاجتماعي واستحالة ؟أن يكون وحده منفردا ببناء البصيرة الدينية للإنسان.
المحاضرة الثالثة: دور العقل، هل يكفي العقل منفردا بالقدرة علي حسم موضوع البصيرة الدينية؟ طبعا يري الكاتب أن ذلك غير ممكن، رغم اعتراضات الكثيرين من أصحاب المذهب الحدسي الذين يرون أن الحدس مهم جدا للبصيرة الدينية، وأن العقل كمصدر للخبرة بعيد تماما عن فكرة البصيرة الدينية.
المحاضرة الرابعة: العالم والإرادة، أثار فيه الاعتراضات التي قامت ضد العقل والتي تري عدم فائدته في الحياة وفشله في حل مشكلة الخلاص الروحي للإنسان.
المحاضرة الخامسة: دين الولاء، سجل فيه الكاتب اعتراضات علي كل مصادر البصيرة الدينية السابقة؛ لأنها لا تسهم بصورة كافية في وضع أساس لدين قوي وإيجابي وحيوي.
الكتاب في مجمله ممل ولا يقدم شيء جديد، ولا أظن أن القاريء العادي قد يري فيه شيء جديد لا يعرفه.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews