1 1970. Watercolor, gouache, and graphite pencil on joined paper, 15-3/4, W. 18-7/8 inches (40 × 47.9 cm.). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Denise and Andrew Saul Fund, 1995 (1995.14.4). Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Gagosian Gallery on behalf of Anselm Kiefer.

2 Frost, Robert, “The Most of It,” The Poetry of Robert Frost (New York: Macmillan, 1979) 338Google Scholar.

3 Burke, Kenneth, A Rhetoric of Motives (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1969) 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In modern war, Burke points out, “millions of cooperative acts go into the preparation for one destructive act…. You will understand war much better if you think of it, not simply as strife come to a head, but rather as a … perversion of communion … before each culminating blast there must be a vast network of interlocking operations, directed communally” (22).

4 For a discussion of Kiefer's exploration of Nazism and fascism with reference to German Jewish culture, see Saltzman, Lisa, Anselm Kiefer and Art after Auschwitz (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000)Google Scholar. On Kiefer and Jewish thought, see also Bloom, Harold, “Anselm Kiefer: Troping without End,” in Anselm Kiefer, Merkaba (ed. Wingate, Ealan; New York: Gagosian Gallery, 2002) 19–33Google Scholar; and Arasse, Daniel, Anselm Kiefer (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2001)Google Scholar esp. 138, 222.

5 As quoted in Anselm Kiefer: Works on Paper in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (ed. Nan Rosenthal; New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998) 20.

6 Interview, July 1997. As quoted in Nan Rosenthal, Anselm Kiefer: Works on Paper, 20. In taking note of Kiefer's rejection of the common interpretation of the painting as a comment on totalitarianism, Daniel Arasse observes that “This is confirmation, if any were needed, of the way that past works are retrospectively reworked” in Kiefer's oeuvre. Anselm Kiefer, 316 n. 24.

7 On the significance of the “dome of heaven” in different contexts, see the seminal article by Karl Lehmann, “The Dome of Heaven,” Art Bulletin 28 (1945) 1–27; see also Hautecœur, Louis, Mystique et Architecture: Symbolisme du Cercle et de la Coupole (Paris: Picard, 1954)Google Scholar; Grabar, Oleg, Islamic Art and Beyond (Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate Variorum, 2006) 87–102Google Scholar, and 225–38; and Stephenson, David, Visions of Heaven: The Dome in European Architecture (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

8 Many different formulations of the notions of vertical and horizontal transcendence exist, none of which have exactly the same connotations as those I employ here. See, for example, Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, Signes (Paris: Gallimard, 1960) 88Google Scholar; Irigaray, Luce, “Fulfilling Our Humanity,” in Luce Irigaray: Key Writings (New York: Continuum, 2004) 189–90Google Scholar; and Paul, Pope John II, The Acting Person (trans. Potocki, Andrzej; Boston: Reidel, 1979) 19–38.Google Scholar

9 See Kosky, Jeffrey L., “The Birth of the Modern Philosophy of Religion and the Death of Transcendence,” in Transcendence: Philosophy, Literature, and Theology Approach the Beyond (ed. Schwartz, Regina L.; New York: Routledge, 2004) 13–30Google Scholar. See also the essays collected in Transcendence and Beyond: a Postmodern Inquiry (ed. John D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon; Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2007), especially Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “G*d—The Many-Named: Without Place and Proper Name,” 109–27, and David Wood, “Topologies of Transcendence,” 169–87, in which he discusses spatial metaphors for transcendence.

10 Heim, Karl, God Transcendent (London: Nesbit and Co., 1935) 33Google Scholar.

11 Kosky, “The Birth of the Modern Philosophy of Religion and the Death of Transcendence,” 13.

12 Jaspers, Karl, The Origin and Goal of History (trans. Bullock, Michael; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1953) 1.Google Scholar

13 Hegel, Georg W. F., The Philosophy of History (trans. Sibree, J.; New York: Dover Publications, 1956) 328Google Scholar.

14 Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, 1.

15 Ibid. The literature on the axial age is immense; for a useful introduction to “axiality” and a discussion of the methodological questions involved, see Arnason, Johann P., “The Axial Age and its Interpreters,” in Axial Civilizations and World History (ed. Arnason, Johann P., Eisenstadt, S. N., and Witttrock, Björn; Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 4; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 19–50Google Scholar. On the sources of the idea of the axial age, see Assman, Aleida, “Jaspers' Achsenzeit, oder, Vom Glück und Elend der Zentralperspektive in der Geschichte,” in Karl Jaspers: Denken Zwischen Wissenschaft, Politik und Philosophie (ed. Harth, Dietrich; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1989) 187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, 2.

17 Ibid.

18 Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, 219. See also Jaspers, Karl, The Perennial Scope of Philosophy (trans. Manheim, Ralph; New York: Philosophical Library, 1949) 12–13Google Scholar.

19 Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, 2. The point at which other human beings become relevant is only after the seismic change in consciousness of Being. At that point, “spiritual conflicts arose, accompanied by the attempt to convince others” of what had been experienced by those few who encountered Being and responded to it. “Discussion, the formation of parties, and the division of the spriritual realm into opposites … created unrest and movement to the very brink of spiritual chaos,” 2.

20 On philosophy as a religious tradition, see Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, “Philosophia as One of the Religious Traditions of Humankind,” in Modern Culture from a Comparative Perspective (ed. Burbidge, John W.; Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1997) 19–50Google Scholar.

21 Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, 221.

22 See Durfee, Harold A., “Karl Jaspers as the Metaphysician of Tolerance,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 1 (1970) 201–10Google Scholar.

23 Ibid.

24 Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History, 19.

25 Ibid., 226–27.

26 Ibid., 263.

27 Ibid., 265.

28 Schwartz, Regina L., “Introduction,” Transcendence, viiGoogle Scholar.

29 On transcendence as a theoretical problem for the scientific study of religion, see Garrett, William R., “Troublesome Transcendence: The Supernatural in the Scientific Study of Religion,” Sociological Analysis 35 (1974) 167–80Google Scholar. See as well Smith, Brian K., “Exorcising the Transcendent: Strategies for Defining Hinduism and Religion,” History of Religions 27 (1987) 32–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Kaufman, Gordon D., “On the Meaning of ‘God’: Transcendence without Mythology,” HTR 59 (1966) 105–32Google Scholar; Stone, Jerome A., The Minimalist Vision of Transcendence: A Naturalist Philosophy of Religion (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1992) 12Google Scholar. “Transzendieren ohne Transzendenz” is the frequently quoted formulation of Ernst Bloch; see Das Prinzip Hoffnung (10 vols.; Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1959) 1:166; as well as Eckert, Michael, Transzendieren und Immanente Transzendenz: Die Transformation der Traditionellen Zweiweltentheorie von Transzendenz und Immanenz in Ernst Blochs Zweiseitentheorie (Wien: Herder, 1981)Google Scholar. On transcendence without transcendence in Derrida, see John D. Caputo, “Temporal Transcendence: The Very Idea of à venir in Derrida,” in Transcendence and Beyond, 188–203.

31 Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007) 19–20Google Scholar. See also Taylor, Charles, A Catholic Modernity?: Charles Taylor's Marianist Award Lecture, with responses by William M. Shea, Rosemary Luling Haughton, George Marsden, and Jean Bethke Elshtain, (ed. Heft, James L.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar). On historicity and transcendence, see ch. 9 of Fackenheim, Emil L., The God Within: Kant, Schelling, and Historicity (ed. Burbidge, John W.; Toronto: University of Toronto, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar). On transcendence and history, see also Hughes, Glenn, Transcendence and History: The Search for Ultimacy from Ancient Societies to Postmodernity (Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press, 2003) 14–60Google Scholar. On modernity and transcendence, see Seligman, Adam B., Modernity's Wager: Authority, the Self, and Transcendence (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Smith, Huston, “Can Modernity Accommodate Transcendence?” in Modernity and Religion (ed. Nicholls, William; Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1987) 157–66Google Scholar; and Berger, Peter L., A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969Google Scholar).

32 Taylor, , A Secular Age, 19, 37–38Google Scholar.

33 Ibid., 36.

34 Ibid., 48.

35 See Plato, Republic, 517b. For Nietzsche's comment on the overlap between Christianity and Platonism with regard to ideas of a true world, see Twilight of the Idols, in The Anti-Christ, Homo, Ecce, Twilight of the Idols, and Other Writings (ed. Ridley, Aaron and Norman, Judith; trans. Norman, Judith; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 171Google Scholar.

36 Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, 171.

37 Nussbaum, Martha C., Love's Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) 370Google Scholar, 379.

38 Nussbaum, Love's Knowledge, 379.

39 Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, The Meaning and End of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1962) 185Google Scholar. See also Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, Faith and Belief (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1979) 161Google Scholar. On the importance of Smith's work for understanding religious pluralism, see Hick, John, “Religious Pluralism,” in The World's Religious Traditions: Current Perspectives in Religious Studies: Essays in Honor of Wilfred Cantwell Smith (ed. Whaling, Frank; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984) 147–64Google Scholar.

40 Ibid.

41 Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, Towards a World Theology: Faith and the Comparative History of Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1981) 184–85Google Scholar. See also Smith, Faith and Belief, 294.

42 Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, “Thoughts on Transcendence,” Zeitschrift für Religions - und Geistesgeschichte 42 (1990) 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Smith, Faith and Belief, 294.

44 Watson, James R., “Responding without Transcendental Warrants,” in Holocaust and Church Struggle: Religion, Power, and the Politics of Resistance (ed. Locke, Hubert G. and Littell, Marcia Sachs; Studies in the Shoah16; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1996) 94Google Scholar. David Brown interprets the painting as a reminder of the dangers of falling into “our own private world”; “Science and Religion in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Landscape Art,” in Reading Genesis After Darwin (ed. Stephen C. Barton and David Wilkinson; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) 120.

45 Nan Rosenthal, Anselm Kiefer: Works on Paper, 20.

46 Mark Rosenthal, Anselm Kiefer, 18.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid.

49 Eliade, Mircea, The Sacred and the Profane (trans. Trask, Willard R.; New York: Harcourt Brace, 1987) 178Google Scholar. On the concept of “shattering the roof,” see also Eliade, Mircea, “Briser le toit de la maison: Symbolisme Architectonique et Physiologie Subtile,” in Studies in Mysticism and Religion: Presented to Gershom G. Scholem (ed. Urbach, E. E., Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi, and Wirszubski, Chaim; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967) 131–39Google Scholar. See also, in a different context, Coomaraswamy, Ananda K., “Pali Kaṇṇikā: Circular Roof-Plate,” JAOS 50 (1930) 239Google Scholar.

50 The refusal of the possession of definitive truth has political implications as well; in many different contexts, the philosopher has been envisioned as a cosmopolitan traveler, a participant in “a tradition of inquiry and knowledge which transcends religious and cultural boundaries … and also transcends ‘ecumenism,’ for this implies prior notice rather than disregard of religious boundaries.” Esmail, Aziz A. and Nanji, Azim A., “Philosophy in the Islamic Context,” in A Companion to Philosophy of Religion (ed. Taliaferro, Charles, Draper, Paul, and Quinn, Philip L.; 2d ed.; Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010) 70Google Scholar.

51 An especially dramatic version of the direct relationship between study and peace is expressed in the frequently repeated thought that there shall be “No peace among the nations without peace among the religions. No peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions. No dialogue among the religions without investigation of the foundation of the religions.” Hans Küng, Judaism (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1992) xxii. Theo Sundermeier suggests that mutual learning is one of the norms that should govern a community made up of religious others; see “Konvivens als Grundstrukstur Ökumenischer Existenz Heute,” in Ökumenische Existenz Heute (ed. Wolfgang Huber, Dietrich Ritschl, and Theo Sundermeier; Ökumenische Existenz Heute 1; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1986) 66. Wilfred Cantwell Smith's proposal for the transformation of the study of other religious traditions is especially important in this context; see his “Comparative Religion—Whither and Why?” in The History of Religions: Essays in Methodology (ed. Mircea Eliade and Joseph M. Kitagawa; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959) 31–58.

52 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Letters and Papers from Prison (Simon & Schuster, 1997) 381Google Scholar.

53 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Berlin 1932–1933 (ed. Rassmussen, Larry L.; trans. Best, Isabel and Higgins, David; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2009) 303Google Scholar. As Eberhard Bethge points out, Bonhoeffer “coins ‘ethical’ or ‘social’ transcendence over [and] against philosophical transcendence” in his first work, Sanctorum Communio, although it has commonly been thought to have appeared for the first time in his letters and papers from prison; “The Challenge of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Life and Theology,” in World Come of Age (ed. Ronald Gregor Smith; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967) 34. On social transcendence in a collective sense, see Cox, Harvey, “Feasibility and Fantasy: Sources of Social Transcendence,” in Transcendence (ed. Richardson, Herbert W. and Cutler, Donald R.; Boston: Beacon Press, 1969) 53–63Google Scholar. For a brief but stimulating discussion of how the idea of society as a locus of transcendence translates into the idea of society as a good, and even a god, in the context of Hinduism, see Parish, Steven M., Moral Knowing in a Hindu Sacred City: An Exploration of Mind, Emotion, and Self (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994) 73–76Google Scholar.

54 Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, 381.

55 Rosenzweig, Franz, The Star of Redemption (trans. Hallo, William W.; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985) 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Ibid., 215. On love and heteronomy in Rosenzweig and Lévinas, see Chalier, Catherine, “The Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas and the Hebraic Tradition,” in Ethics as First Philosophy: The Significance of Emmanuel Levinas for Philosophy, Literature, and Religion (ed. Peperzak, Adriaan T.; New York: Routledge, 1995) 7Google Scholar. For an important correction of views concerning the ethical and theoretical centrality of alterity to Rosenzweig's thought, see Gordon, Peter Eli, Rosenzweig and Heidegger: Between Judaism and German Philosophy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003) 199–201Google Scholar.

57 For a discussion of submission to the divine will (as manifested in a comprehensive body of law) as a means of transcending “mere humanity” see Graham, William A., “Transcendence in Islam,” in Ways of Transcendence: Insights from Major Religions and Modern Thought (ed. Dowdy, Edwin; Bedford Park, South Australia: Australian Association for the Study of Religions, 1982) 15–16Google Scholar.

58 Antanand Rambachan, “A Hindu Perspective on Moving from Religious Diversity to Religious Pluralism,” in Education as Transformation: Religious Pluralism, Spirituality, and a New Vision for Higher Education in America (ed. Victor H. Kazanjian and Peter L. Laurence; New York: Lang, 2000) 178.

59 Kogan, Michael S., Opening the Covenant: A Jewish Theology of Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) 240CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Kogan, Opening the Covenant, 75. In this account, pluralism requires transcendence of others, but to what extent it stands in need of transcendence itself—as well as by what means and towards what end—is not apparent, since pluralist principles are already in accord with the “essence of applied religion.”

61 It makes a difference, for instance, whether one approaches questions out of a love of wisdom or merely a desire to “do justice” to a given topic or problem.

62 See, however, the revisionist history of toleration in Kaplan, Benjamin J., Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Kaplan makes the important point that the rise of secular doctrines in the Enlightenment was not neatly aligned with an increase in the practice of toleration.

63 Sachedina, Abdulaziz, The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Sachedina, Islamic Roots, 35.

65 de Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America (trans. Arthur Goldhammer; New York: Library of America, 2004) 585Google Scholar.

66 Smith, “Thoughts on Transcendence,” 41.

67 Ibid., 42. See also Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, Questions of Religious Truth (New York: Scribners, 1967)Google Scholar and “A Human View of Truth,” Truth and Dialogue in World Religions: Conflicting Truth-Claims (ed. John Hick; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974) 20–44.

68 Smith, “Thoughts on Transcendence,” 44.

69 Ibid., 48.

70 On the role of friendship in acquiring knowledge of other religious traditions, see Smith, “Comparative Religion—Whither and Why?,” esp. 34–39, including n. 18. On the potential of study to yield insight into the faith of one's friends and neighbors, see Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion, 188–92. In contemplating the possibility that a great scholarly work on multireligious consciousness might be written in the future, Smith concludes that “[i]f the great religions are true, or even if any of them is, then such a work is possible; and if it is written, it will be essentially true. For have we not been told that all men are brothers…. And that the two matters of supreme importance are the relations of persons within that total community, and the relations between men and God?” “Comparative Religion—Whither and Why?,” 58.

71 Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion, 195. Smith views the term “theology” as similarly problematic, because its implied acknowledgement of a deity as the locus of concern renders it unfit for the comparative study of religion. He asks if “transcendentology” might not be a better option; Towards a World Theology, 183. On this point, see Hick, John, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (2d ed.; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2004) 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Eck, Diana L., Guide for Teachers and Students Using “On Common Ground: World Religions in America” (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997) 17Google Scholar. On religions as rivers, see also Eck, Diana L., Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993) ixGoogle Scholar, 2. According to Ramakrishna, the nineteenth-century Hindu sage, “It is not good to feel that one's own religion is true and all the others false. God is only one and not two. Different people call him by different names…. Each religion is only a path leading to God, as rivers come from different directions and ultimately become one in the ocean.” The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (trans. Swami Nikhilānanda; New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 1942) 265. For Gandhi's comment that “religions are all rivers that meet in the same ocean,” see The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (100 vols.; Delhi: Publications Division of Government of India, 1958–1994) 7: 338.

73 Diana L. Eck, Guide for Teachers, 17. On this point, see also Eck, Diana L., “Dialogue and Method: Reconstructing the Study of Religion,” in A Magic Still Dwells: Comparative Religion in the Postmodern Age (ed. Patton, Kimberley C. and Ray, Benjamin C.; Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2000) 131–49Google Scholar. See as well Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion, 199. On the concept of paths and ways through the wilderness in Buddhism, see Batchelor, Stephen, “The Other Enlightenment Project,” in Faith and Praxis in a Post-Modern Age (ed. King, Ursula; New York: Cassell, 1998) 113–27Google Scholar. For a comparative discussion of Batchelor's work on paths and ways with reference to the tradition of Augustinian Christianity, see Barnes, Michael, “Way and Wilderness: An Augustinian Dialogue with Buddhism,” in Augustine and World Religions (ed. Brian Brown, John Doody, and Kim Paffenroth; Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2008) 115–40Google Scholar. Concerning his comparison of religious traditions to rivers, theologian Raimundo Panikkar observes that “the rivers of earth do not actually meet each other not even in the oceans … they meet in the skies—that is, in heaven…. ‘They’ meet in the form of clouds, once they have suffered a transformation into vapor.” Panikkar, Raimundo, “The Jordan, the Tiber and the Ganges: Three Kairological Moments of Christic Self-Awareness,” in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness (ed. Hick, John and Knitter, Paul; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987) 92Google Scholar.

74 Greenberg, Irving, “The Principles of Pluralism,” Sh'ma 29 (1999) 5Google Scholar.

75 Hick, An Interpretation of Religion, xix. See also Hick, John, Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995) 12Google Scholar. For Hick's comment on his decision to employ Kant in this context, see An Interpretation of Religion, xix, xxviii–xxix. On Hick and Kant, see especially Brad Seeman, “What if the Elephant Speaks? Kant's Critique of Judgment and an Übergang Problem in John Hick's Philosophy of Religious Pluralism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 54 (2003) 157–74. On various questions and doubts about the theoretical soundness and implications of the notion of the “Real,” see (among others): Rowe, William, “Religious Pluralism,” Religious Studies 35 (1999) 139–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ch. 2 of Plantinga, Alvin, Warranted Christian Belief (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Cornille, Catherine, The Im-possibility of Interreligious Dialogue (New York: Herder and Herder, 2008) 122–27Google Scholar.

76 The pre-axial religions, in his account, are conservative, defensive, and focused on warding off chaos. Hick, , Interpretation of Religion, 23Google Scholar. The post-axial religions, however, are characterized by “a sense of a higher reality in relation to which a limitlessly better future is possible” and “personal openness to transcendence”: “since the new religious messages of the axial age were addressed to individuals as such, rather than cells in a social organism, these messages were in principle universal in scope” (28). Hick suggests that the notion of the autonomous individual and “ego” begins in the axial period (164–65; see also 117, 161). But “ego-transcendence” is also thought to exist prior to the axial period as well (albeit in a different form, as “spontaneous self-transcendence” (164). This raises the question of what different sorts of notions of the self and the autonomous individual were current from 800–200 B.C.E. and in which particular texts from the period they might be found, as well as the issue of how axial age notions of the individual, the self, and the ego differ from those of modernity. Hick also makes a point about corporate redemption but does not reflect upon the questions this raises for his account of transcendence, which is generally oriented towards internal, individual transformation (47). He also explains that his work focuses on what he calls the “experiential heart” of religion as distinguished from its “institutional history” (51–52). One wonders what the status of liturgical experience (the forms of which are mediated through institutional history and hierarchy) is within the “experiential heart” of religion.

77 Ibid., 36.

78 Ibid., 301. See also Hick, John, “Exclusivism Versus Pluralism in Religion: A Response to Kevin Meeker,” Religious Studies 42 (2006) 207CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the notion that the authenticity of religions and religious experiences are to be judged by the criterion of goodwill, love, and compassion, see ch. 18 of Hick, An Interpretation of Religion, esp. 316–26.

79 Hick suggests that the norms of other-regarding behavior found in a number of different religious traditions are fully consonant with what he regards as “the fundamental moral claim,” which is “to treat others as having the same value as myself” (149). He adds that “[t]his is in effect a transcription of the Golden Rule found in the Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, Taoist, Zoroastrian, Jain, and Christian scriptures and in the Jewish Talmud and the Muslim Hadith … and is likewise a translation of Kant's concepts of a rational person as an end and of right action which our rationality, acknowledging a universal impartiality transcending individual desires and aversions, can see to be required” (149).

80 On Christian love and norms of impartiality, see Outka, Gene, Agape: An Ethical Analysis (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1972)Google Scholar and Outka, Gene, “Universal Love and Impartiality,” in The Love Commandments: Essays in Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy (ed. Santurri, Edmund N. and Werpehowski, William; Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1992) 1–103Google Scholar. For a general introduction to the topic of impartiality and impartialism (including remarks on the question of whether impartialism is itself “just another sectarian creed,” see Mendus, Susan, “Impartiality,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory (ed. Dryzek, John S., Honig, Bonnie and Phillips, Anne; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) 423–35Google Scholar. On the tension between love and impartiality, see especially Williams, Bernard, Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers, 1973–1980 (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1982) 17–18Google Scholar.

81 Hick, An Interpretation of Religion, 350.

82 Ibid., 300.

83 Ibid., 300–1. This lends considerable weight to consensus (in this case, as regarding the “fruits of the spirit” that merit recognition and respect).

84 Junger, Peter, “Why the Buddha Has No Rights,” in Buddhism and Human Rights (ed. Keown, Damien V., Prebish, Charles S., and Husted, Wayne R.; New York: Routledge, 1998) 62.Google Scholar

85 Hick, “Exclusivism Versus Pluralism,” 207.

86 Ibid., 208.

87 Hick, John, “The Possibility of Religious Pluralism: A Reply to Gavin D'Costa,” RelS 33 (1997) 165Google Scholar.

88 I add “politically” in light of Hick's suggestion that he is “fully in agreement” with Paul Knitter's emphasis on the “liberative social and political aspects” of pluralism. Hick, “The Possibility of Religious Pluralism,” 165–66. On Hick and Knitter, see as well Benedict, Pope XVI, Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions (trans. Taylor, Henry; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004) 118–27Google Scholar. My thanks to Jonathan Bruno for the reference. Hick's response to Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) may be found in Hick, John, Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Palgrave, 2001) 157–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Hick, An Interpretation of Religion, 2.

90 Ibid.

91 Knitter, Paul F., “‘My God is Bigger than Your God!’: Time for Another Axial Shift in the History of Religions,” Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 17 (2007) 100CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Knitter, “My God,” 114.

93 In this context, one might wonder how a decision to engineer a new axial age comports with pluralism's reluctance to posit comprehensive claims that flatly override those of others. Knitter (who, incidentally, prefers the term “mutualist” to that of “pluralist”) is aware of the problem but appeals to the necessity of “honesty” regarding “what many religious people, especially in Europe and North America are saying about how they want to relate to each other” (“My God,” 10).

94 Hick, John, Death and Eternal Life (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994) 464.Google Scholar

95 Banchoff, Thomas F., “Introduction,” in Democracy and the New Religious Pluralism (ed. Banchoff, Thomas F.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007) 4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the implications of immigration, globalization, and pluralism for American self-understanding and experience, as well as for the study of religion, see Eck, Diana L., A New Religious America: How a “Christian Country” Has Now Become the World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001)Google Scholar. The fact of plurality (registered, as Banchoff suggests, as an increase in fluidity) is thought to have prescriptive implications for both theory and practice. For instance, with regard to theory, some scholars have argued that the very categories of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism are “too narrow, static, and insufficiently differentiated to capture the organic, fluid, and dynamic reality of religion at a personal and social level.” King, Ursula, “Feminism: The Missing Dimension in the Dialogue of Religions,” in Pluralism and the Religions: The Theological and Political Dimensions (ed. D'Arcy May, John; Cassell, 1998) 46Google Scholar.

96 Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, The Faith of Other Men (New York: New American Library, 1963) 11Google Scholar.

97 More broadly, it is worth considering the suggestion (found in different versions in both Jaspers and Smith) that philosophy and theory may be regarded as being, in some sense, themselves responses to the transcendent, arising out of the experience of wonder at the other that is the unknown and informed by a passionate desire to look into it further. On the relationship of Western notions of philosophy to the civic and religious practice of theoria, see Nightingale, Andrea Wilson, Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy: Theoria in its Cultural Context (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar. See also Rutherford, Ian, “Theoria and Darśan: Pilgrimage and Vision in Greece and India,” CQ 50 (2000) 133–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in which he compares theoria to darśan, the act of “physical-spiritual seeing and being seen” that occurs in ritual encounter with images of the divine in South Asian religion. See also Ray, Reginald A., Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999) 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98 Rambachan, “A Hindu Perspective on Moving from Religious Diversity to Religious Pluralism,” 178.

99 Heck, Paul L., Common Ground: Islam, Christianity, and Religious Pluralism (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2009) 1.Google Scholar

100 Eck, Encountering God, 197.

101 Eck, Diana L., “Prospects for Pluralism: Voice and Vision in the Study of Religion,” JAAR 75 (2007) 745Google Scholar.

102 Eck, Dialogue and Method, 139.

103 Ibid., 140.

104 On objectivity in the natural sciences, see Shapin, Steven, The Scientific Revolution (2d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996) 162–65Google Scholar, and Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter, Objectivity (New York: Zone Books, 2007).Google Scholar On knowledge and virtue, see Shapin, Steven, The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Ch. 4 of Smith, Towards a World Theology, is also relevant here.

105 Pieper, Josef, “Justice,” in The Four Cardinal Virtues (trans. Coogan, Daniel F.; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1965) 54Google Scholar, 55.

106 As Jonathan Bruno points out, “this would seem to get us back to a narrowly legal ‘toleration.’ ” Personal correspondence, May 26, 2010. On objectivity as an attempt at transcendence, see Rorty, Richard, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth (vol. 1 of Philosophical Papers; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar esp. 1–22.

107 David Griffin, Ray, “Religious Pluralism: Generic, Identist, and Deep,” in Deep Religious Pluralism (ed. Griffin, David Ray; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2005) 10.Google Scholar

108 Berry, Thomas, “The Cosmology of Religions,” in Pluralism and Oppression: Theology and World Perspectives (ed. Knitter, Paul F.; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1991) 106.Google Scholar

109 Griffin, David Ray and Smith, Huston, Primordial Truth and Postmodern Theology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989) 41.Google Scholar

110 Smith, Huston, The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions (2d ed.; New York: HarperCollins, 1991) 307.Google Scholar

111 Ibid., 308.

112 Ibid., 308. Yet see Smith's additional remark that while it is possible to resent particularism, “one must ask whether in doing so we would be resenting the kind of world we have. For like it or not, this is a world of particulars, and human minds are tuned thereto” (309) [italics in original].