How to Study the Historical Imprint of Religions on Cultures According to Christopher Dawson
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. I offer first some general comments, followed by comments related to more specific aspects of the manuscript.
2. General Commentary
3. For me, the paper was very well written.
4. The research reviewed was very relevant to the historical-sociological imprint of religions on cultures and was described very well.
5. In short, I really enjoyed reading this paper.
6. The following comment is highly speculative and probably reflects my lack of expertise in „the historical imprint of religions on cultures according to Christopher Dawson“. The author says: "The existence of religion in the highest civilizations has always postulated the existence of theology." (lines 91-92) The statement should be made more precise. What are the highest civilizations? Which and what kind of theology is meant? I know that this is a complex subject. But for me as a reader, an explicit definition of the highest civilizations would have been beneficial.
7. It might be useful to explain in a few sentences why „The concept of revelation is universal, as old as religion itself (line 225)… Therefore, every school of natural theology is preceded by a revealed theology and in many cases depends on it.“ (lines 228-230). But might the reverse be true? Might a revealed theology and need for a revelation be the result of a natural theology, rather than a revealed theology? For example, is it possible that our concept and desires for one’s supranatural Being is affected by one’s view of nature? These are probably issues beyond the scope of this review, but I found myself wanting to rethink this analysis in terms of Dawson's view of transcendence.
8. „Undoubtedly, for our author, not all religions are comparable, and among them Christianity is the fullest, most transcendent, and human religion, and therefore the one with the greatest potential and capacity to inform a culture." (lines 429- 431).“ It would be well to back up this sentence with a quotation from Dawson. The next sentence starts with, „Dawson always appreciated the Anglican upbringing he had received.“ (line 432) It would be good to quote Dawson and not Watkins to clarify any further ambiguity regarding Dawson's commitment and preference for Christianity over other religions.
9. In sum, I found this paper to be an enjoyable, informative, and important review. I believe that this paper will be valuable to all with some interest in „the historical imprint of religions on cultures according to Christopher Dawson“.
Author Response
Thank you for your criticism, which I appreciate. These are the comments I would make on the most relevant observations:
- By higher civilisations he means China, India, Japan, the Middle East, Western and Eastern countries, Persian and Ottoman empires, Judaism... In short, the most structured societies and cultures. He says: “In the higher cultures the existence of religion has always involved the existence of theology—that is to say, a rational system of religious knowledge. All the higher religions do in fact assert the existence of a science of divine truth and base their teaching upon it.”
- This option seems reasonable if religion is understood as something of the individual, where the religious life comes first and then reflection on it. But Dawson introduces with the historical data a richer vision of the individual. Religion is not something merely individual but social. Then religion is first lived and the natural religious life is built up in the structures and documents of a social religiosity. Subsequently, the value of revelation is claimed for these books and a theology is made from them. Finally, the reflection of natural theology appears.
“In the religious literature of India we can trace the whole process by which there was developed first a highly specialized class devoted to the study of the sacred formulas and ritual techniques and secondly a movement of theological thought and speculation concerning ultimate religious truths which finally became concentrated on the primary intuition of the absoluteness of the Being which underlies and transcends alike the Self and the cosmic process. When this point is reached we can indeed speak of Natural Theology but in spite of its genuinely philosophical character, and its reliance on direct spiritual intuition, the Vedanta itself claims the authority of revelation in the strict sense of the word…
…the truth of the supreme intuition is itself established by the authority of Scripture and not vice versa.
This holds good of all the historic religions: everywhere revelation is regarded as the primary source of religious truth, and intuition and reason are secondary. And this is true in the sense that positive, historic religion is always primary, and philosophical or theological religion is the result of a secondary reflective activity”
- I have decided to omit these statements, because they would have been a thread of reasoning that is not so relevant to the argumentation of the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article addresses a figure known at Notre Dame (though not touched in the article) and, perhaps, Catholic circles. Author needs a stronger statement on why we need to know about his works, including did he establish a new line of thought with history/theology and evidence of his influence on other scholars. Similarly, the reader may wonder why some much attention is given to extensive quotes -- but it feels like quoting for the sake of quoting and not seeing a unique point behind each direct quote. The paper also feels like an undergraduate paper because of the absence of reflection to help the reader know why this guy is important and its largely biographical character. Actual citations going back his publications need to be more carefully chosen, succinct, and insightful. One really needs a succinct biographical element in the first few pages followed by a closer look at his ideas and their reception/rejection in the academic community -- I am assuming the intent remains with the biographical. My intention here is to provide what I hope will be taken as constructive criticism that I would give any of my students or colleagues. Think over carefully if this guy is really that interesting to you or not. I apologize in advance if this sounds rough. Others may have better advice.
Author Response
First of all, thank you for the criticism which I appreciate and see as constructive.
There is indeed nothing biographical about Christopher Dawson, although in his field I would say he was more important than Spengler and Toynbee. These two are better known and more quoted, but time has given Dawson more reason to be right, in terms of predictions of what was to happen in civilisations. It can be understood as a coincidence or that Dawson really did capture the essentials in those civilisations. Proving this claim would take a whole article, but I think it is not in keeping with the purpose of the journal for which I write.
I have quoted nothing from Notre Dame, even though he is included on its own website (https://ethicscenter.nd.edu/about/inspire/giants/), and nothing from St. Thomas University, which contains his writings. Nor from Harvard.
I wanted to highlight his relevance through positive quotes from other authors because I have not found direct allusions to the subject of the article. That is why I have gone directly to the sources and he is quoted directly. Moreover, I am not sure how to deal with this issue, because the perception of other reviewers is slightly different.
As for me, I could be more critical of the author, but my aim was transversal: to bring to light something implicit in his studies.
In any case, I take into account your request for a biographical presentation of why this author and this topic, and to reduce the quotations and/or to make them more meaningful and incisive.
I will try my best also with the criticism. Again, thank you and I look forward to your reply.
Reviewer 3 Report
for a paper on the scientific study of religion, I found the author unduly uncritical of the claims of Dawson. Moreover, while the author clearly appreciates Dawson, there is no critical distance between the author and Dawson. The author seems to think everything Dawson says is true. But more needs to be explained about Dawson's views, arguments better laid out and evaluated, connections with more contemporary social-scientific studies made clear. Here are some particular comments
“Dawson's philosophy of history is probably the most valuable contribution to this field in the twentieth century”
Hmmm, never heard of him. Play down the hyperbole?
“Dawson understood that “the science of comparative religion created a museum of dead anthropological curiosities”
"understood" is a success term. Does the author think the Dawson claim is true? Obviously true? What does it really mean?
“the historical science of religion”
I would like to hear in a nutshell what the author means by this
Esp since the Dawson seems to think historiography is included
“the reality and autonomy of religious science”
Again, this big term is undefined
“All religion is based on the recognition of a supernatural reality of which man is aware and towards which he must orient his life (Romera 2008, 16, 23). Therefore, the existence of the transcendent reality that we call God…”
This requires some scientific study. The influence of the supernatural in human history is clear. It’s only a late development in human history to call this God. That is, the movement from non-natural beings and powers to God requires discussion. But Dawson just conflates the two?
“neither sociology, nor history of religions, nor the study of cultures and their respective religions can be done without recognising this reality that lies at the basis of religions”
Again, God is “this reality” – why? Humans have countenanced countless supernatural entities and powers. Why can’t sociology be done without recognizing “this reality.”
“Dawson considers valid both the demonstration of the existence of God that arises from observing the order of the universe and the experience of transcendence associated with a movement of man's internalisation.”
I assume the author means that Dawson consider the demonstration of God as sound. If so, would be good to hear what that demonstration is.
“The concept of revelation is universal, as old as religion itself.”
Is this a scientific claim? I would have thought revelation a later addition to religion.
“The risk lies in studying only religious phenomenology, forgetting that religion is essentially a dynamic relationship between man and God.”
There is a lot of religion that does not involve God (if God is the Abrahamic God??). Such claims, widely made by the author, are unscientific.
“This generic definition seems to be adequate for any religion. But it should also be noted that the notion of religion finds in Dawson a deeper echo when that religion is 428 Christianity. Undoubtedly, for our author, not all religions are comparable, and among them Christianity is the fullest, most transcendent, and human religion, and therefore the one with the greatest potential and capacity to inform a culture”
Besides intellectual imperialism or colonialism, why does Dawson think this? Can the author justify it? Explain it?
“The study of religion begins and ends on the theological plane, not on the sociological or historical plane. That is why the historical study of religion needs to admit initially the transcendent element of religious experience and the validity of religious truth.”
It would be good if the author were to make some sense of this – sense of it independent of just repeating contentious claims on the part of Dawson.
Author Response
I am very grateful for this review, which is the most incisive of the four and therefore the one that will help me most to improve the final result of the article.
I hope to live up to the reviewer's expectations.
These are my comments to yours. I attach the new version addressing the criticism:
“Dawson's philosophy of history is probably the most valuable contribution to this field in the twentieth century”
Hmmm, never heard of him. Play down the hyperbole?
Done, thanks
“Dawson understood that “the science of comparative religion created a museum of dead anthropological curiosities”
"understood" is a success term. Does the author think the Dawson claim is true? Obviously true? What does it really mean?
“Thought” is a better word
“the historical science of religion”
I would like to hear in a nutshell what the author means by this
Esp since the Dawson seems to think historiography is included
Historiography is the art of writing history, but it is also the science that is in charge of studying history. For some historians, one cannot speak of "history" in the singular, but of "histories" in the plural because they are all narratives. However, for most historians the scientific condition of history, or at least the aspiration to such a condition, is inalienable. I understand the historical science of religion in this second aspect.
“the reality and autonomy of religious science”
Again, this big term is undefined
It is similar to the previous one: an objective and not merely subjective study of religion is possible.
“All religion is based on the recognition of a supernatural reality of which man is aware and towards which he must orient his life (Romera 2008, 16, 23). Therefore, the existence of the transcendent reality that we call God…”
This requires some scientific study. The influence of the supernatural in human history is clear. It’s only a late development in human history to call this God. That is, the movement from non-natural beings and powers to God requires discussion. But Dawson just conflates the two?
Totally agree, but I think it exceeds the aim of the article. Dawson clearly distinguishes between the two and talks about how the transition takes place. Romera as well. That is why the first statement is quoted almost 100 pages before the second statement. And I quote Romera because it seems to me that he explains it better.
“neither sociology, nor history of religions, nor the study of cultures and their respective religions can be done without recognising this reality that lies at the basis of religions”
Again, God is “this reality” – why? Humans have countenanced countless supernatural entities and powers. Why can’t sociology be done without recognizing “this reality.”
You're right. And this is one of Dawson's strong claims. The reason why he rejects the comparative study of religions. I made some changes. "This reality" is not just God, is a trancendent reality that is beyond the human spirit. Sociology and phenomenology of religion are very important but they would not be if God is just a projection of the human spirit.
“Dawson considers valid both the demonstration of the existence of God that arises from observing the order of the universe and the experience of transcendence associated with a movement of man's internalisation.”
I assume the author means that Dawson consider the demonstration of God as sound. If so, would be good to hear what that demonstration is.
I think Dawson takes for granted the two main arguments. He does not prove them.
“The concept of revelation is universal, as old as religion itself.”
Is this a scientific claim? I would have thought revelation a later addition to religion.
Tricky question. Which comes first, some kind of personal encounter with or social revelation of divinity, or a Feuerbachian perspective? I think I address the answer in the new version.
“The risk lies in studying only religious phenomenology, forgetting that religion is essentially a dynamic relationship between man and God.”
There is a lot of religion that does not involve God (if God is the Abrahamic God??). Such claims, widely made by the author, are unscientific.
A scientific study of all this phenomenology is possible, which would be the study of spirituality in more current terms, but not necessarilly of a religion.
I would personally say that Dawson realized the emptying of content that the concept of religion was having and tried to demand a return to it. For instance, today many people live a religiosity or spirituality without God. Should we put both of them together or is it better to split them apart?
“This generic definition seems to be adequate for any religion. But it should also be noted that the notion of religion finds in Dawson a deeper echo when that religion is 428 Christianity. Undoubtedly, for our author, not all religions are comparable, and among them Christianity is the fullest, most transcendent, and human religion, and therefore the one with the greatest potential and capacity to inform a culture”
Besides intellectual imperialism or colonialism, why does Dawson think this? Can the author justify it? Explain it?
I have removed this statement. It adds nothing to the article, beyond Dawson's professed faith. The same could be said by another author who is convinced that the faith he professes is true, even though he does not feel in possession of the truth.
“The study of religion begins and ends on the theological plane, not on the sociological or historical plane. That is why the historical study of religion needs to admit initially the transcendent element of religious experience and the validity of religious truth.”
It would be good if the author were to make some sense of this – sense of it independent of just repeating contentious claims on the part of Dawson.
I think this question is already answered with the previous comments. Dawson gives priority to the reality of the supernatural and, according to him -and this is the scandalous affirmation that he makes-, accepting that reality is necessary for a study that captures the religious phenomenon in all its depth. Personally, I would say that it is completely out of political correctness.
Reviewer 4 Report
The article deals quite well with the work of a lesser known figure in the field of the scientific study of religion in the early 20th century, Christopher Dawson. Its primary originality lies in that focus. My only suggestion would be, if the author wished to expand this study a bit, to consider the work of some late 20th/early 21st century phenomenologists of religion (especially those inspired by the work of Jean-Luc Marion) to more fully articulate the methodological commitment to religious experience / theology as the first principle for a scientific study of religion. In that way, an early 20th century thinker might be brought into a closer dialogue with contemporary discussions of the topic. However, the article can still stand on its own even without this expanded focus as a study of a lesser known thinker from the early 20th century.
Author Response
I very much appreciate the comment and no doubt studies by phenomenologists of religion inspired by the work of Jean-Luc Marion would improve the work. But I only had 10 days to respond to the objections of the four reviewers and I need more time to address this point.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Important observations have been added. Additional quotations fit easily into what was recommended the author not do. As a final thought, it seems odd to claim that Dawson is read by many and yet overlooked as a historian. What I register from the evidence provided is that Dawson explores a psychology of religion, closer to William James. Dawson's historical interest is clearly secondary to his religious agenda for a conservative Anglican become Catholic. I see no element of a typical historiography in the text. However, I can see serious effort to improve the article. I also know what a pain it is to get something published. So, I'll not let any bias I may have impede the publishing of your article.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is much improved
I approve its publication