natural religon versus positive religon

“So called natural religion is usually so refined and has such philosophical and moral manners that it allows little of the unique character of religion to shine through; it know how to live so politely , to restrain and accommodate itself so well that it is tolerated everywhere. In contrast, every positive religion has exceedingly strong features and a very marked physiognomy so that it unfailingly reminds one of what it really is with every moment it makes and with every glance one casts upon it.”(98)

In this passage Schleiermacher contrasts positive religion and natural religion. Neither natural religion nor positive religion embodies what true religion is. Both have fundamental flaws that prevent them from becoming true religion.

Religion for Schleiermacher is emotionally and sensory motivated. True religion occurs when a person understands their relationship to the infinite. Both natural and positive religion fail to reach this understanding.

He argues that positive religion; while not true religion is much preferred to natural religion. Positive religion is what organized faith is; it is defined by rituals, scriptures, and tradition; it is the kind of religion that Kant wrote so strongly against.

Schleiermacher agrees with Kant that there are flaws within positive religion. Positive religion has a tendency to focus on aspects that will hinder religion instead of help. They focus on empty tradition instead of the practitioner’s personal experience, they emphasize the differences among positive religion discouraging people to understand the infinite in their own way. Positive religion can never be true religion because of the way organized faith imposes its one interpretation of the infinite on others. Religion is something that must happen through personal experience and so forcing religion on others and discouraging the discovery of personal religious truths in the way institutionalized religion does will never be successful.

. He does not, however, see positive religion as completely pointless because he thinks that at the core of positive religion is the “intuition of the infinite.” Positive religion is much better than natural religion for it has the essence of religion; which unfortunately becomes corrupted through the institutionalization of organized faith.

Natural religion (the kind Kant defended), on the other hand, has no merit in Schleiermacher’s eyes; he sees it as devoid of anything resembling religion. He uses the words “refined,” “manners,” “polite” and “tolerated” in his explanation of natural religion. The contrast between the passive diction he uses to describe natural religion and the active way he describes the raw experimentally based true religion is stark. Natural religion disregards intuition and so Schleiermacher does not see how anyone can be led to religion intuitively through it.

I think there is a tension between Schleiermacher’s assertion that religion is a personal way of coming to understand the infinite and his condemnation of natural religion. It seems that some people may be more prone to understand the infinite through reason rather than emotion. It is strange that he advocates for personal experience with religion and yet he does not approve any interpretation for the definition of religion but his own. He sees nature as something that is based on the individual and yet will only accept his ideas of where religion originates from