Collingwood on religious atonement

R. G. Collingwood’s philosophical analysis of religious atonement as a dialectical process of mortal repentance and divine forgiveness is explained and criticized. Collingwood’s Christian concept of atonement, in which Christ TeX the Atonement (and also TeX the Incarnation), is subject in turn to another kind of dialectic, in which some of Collingwood’s leading ideas are first surveyed, and then tested against objections in a philosophical evaluation of their virtues and defects, strengths and weaknesses. Collingwood’s efforts to synthesize objective and subjective aspects of atonement, and his proposal to solve the soteriological problem as to why God becomes flesh, as a dogma of some Christian belief systems, is finally exposed in adversarial exposition as inadequately supported by one of his main arguments, designated here as Collingwood’s Dilemma. The dilemma is that sin is either forgiven or unforgiven by God. If God forgives sin, then God’s justice is lax, whereas if God does not forgive sin, then, also contrary to divine nature, God lacks perfect loving compassion. The dilemma is supposed to drive philosophy toward a concept of atonement in which the sacrifice of Christ is required in order to absolve God of the lax judgment objection. God forgives sin only when the price of sin is paid, in this case, by the suffering and crucifixion of God’s avatar. The dilemma can be resolved in another way than Collingwood considers, undermining his motivation for synthesizing objective and subjective facets of the concept of atonement for the sake of avoiding inconsistency. Collingwood is philosophically important because he asks all the right questions about religious atonement, and points toward reasonable answers, even if he does not always deliver original philosophically satisfactory solutions.

‘Idolatry’ and Religious Diversity: Thinking about the Other in Early Modern Europe

Idolatry is a key concept in the history of Western thinking about religion, as an all-encompassing category in which all religions more or less alien to the Christian tradition could be subsumed. From Late Antiquity to the Modern period, we can follow how the notion was put to work within Christian discourse to think about the religious “other. ” In fact, the word is almost ubiquitous in pre-modern debates on religion and the origins of religion. Theories on the nature and causes of “idolatry” framed much of the issue of “Religion” vs. the “religions,” and largely provided the conceptual space, in early modern Europe, in which religious anthropology would emerge. The present paper will investigate some aspects of the early modern discourse on idolatry, and its place in early modern discussions on the “diversity” of religions.

Religious Diversity and Religious Vitality: New Measuring Strategies and Empirical Evidence

Quantitative studies of the conditions and consequences of religious diversity are based mostly on indices that measure the variety of religious membership in a particular region. However, this line of research has become stagnant, and the question of whether diversity affects religious vitality remains unanswered. This article attempts to shed new light on the discussion by measuring religious diversity differently and capturing religious vitality independently of membership figures. In particular, it contrasts the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index based on membership proportions with a second measure of diversity: an index of organizational diversity. Conversely, the dependent variable religious vitality is measured not by using rates of participation in religious organizations but via the Centrality of Religion Scale. Based on ecological and individual level data of forty-three local regions in Finland, Germany, and Slovenia and using multilevel analysis, our results suggest that religious diversity is related to religious vitality. However, the nature of this association differs across subgroups.