MAIN PROBLEMS OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: 

 PSYCHOLOGY AND THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE IN 

 THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION 



BY PROFESSOR ERNST TROELTSCH 

 (Translated from the German by Dr. J. H. Woods, Harvard University.') 



[Ernst Troeltsch, Professor of Systematic Theology, University of Heidelberg, 

 since 1894. b. February 17, 1865, Augsburg, Bavaria. Doctor of Theology. 

 Professor University of Bonn, 1892-94. Author of John Gerhard and Mel- 

 anchthon; Richard Rubbe; The Scientific Attitude and its Demands on 

 Theology; The Absoluteness of Christianity, and of the History of Religion; 

 Political Ethics and Christianity; The Historic Element in Kant's Religious 

 Philosophy.} 



THE philosophy of religion of to-day is philosophy of religion so far 

 only, and in such a sense, as this word means science of religion or 

 philosophy with reference to religion. The science of religion of 

 former days was first dogmatic theology, deriving its dogmas from 

 the Bible and from Church tradition, expounding them apologetic- 

 ally with the metaphysical speculation of the later period of anti- 

 quity, and regarding the non-Christian religions as sinful derange- 

 ments and obscure fragments of the primitive revelation. This 

 lasted sixteen centuries, and is confined to-day to strictly ecclesias- 

 tical circles. Next, science of religion became natural theology, 

 which proved the existence of God by the nature of thought and by 

 the constitution of reality, and also the immortality of the soul by 

 the concept of the soul and by moral demands, thus constructing 

 natural or rational dogmas and putting these dogmas into more 

 or less friendly relations with traditional Christianity. This lasted 

 about two centuries, and is to-day of the not strictly ecclesiastical 

 or pietistic circles, which still wish to hold fast to religion. Both 

 kinds of science of religion exist no longer for the strict science. 

 The first was, in reality, supernaturalistic dogmatics, the second 

 was, in reality, a substitution of philosophy for religion. The first 

 was demolished by the criticism of miracles in the eighteenth century, 

 the second by the criticism of knowledge in the nineteenth century, 

 which, in its turn, rests upon Hume and Kant. 



The science of religion of to-day keeps in touch with that which 

 without doubt factually exists and is an object of actual experience, 

 the subjective religious consciousness. The distrust of ecclesiastical 

 and rationalistic dogmas has made, in the thought of the present, 

 every other treatment impossible. So the spirit of empiricism has 

 here as at other points completely prevailed. But empiricism in this 

 field means psychological analysis. This analysis is pursued by the 



