Anti-rationalism is a principle supported by most people who disagree with the idea of religion. In a nutshell, The Sense of Antirationalsm is an exemplary work of literature that gives the study of comparative religious studies a new approach.
This book compares the philosophy of religion with competing traditions to promote the notion of Antirationalsm. This book presents methods that can be used in comparative religious studies as well as creating a better understanding of the religious philosophy of the Chinese people.
It is clearly shown in the book that religions are all geared towards satisfying a similar human need. This makes all religions to have some similarities in their mode of conduct as well as in their forms of beliefs.
According to the authors, all religions have similar array of functions. However, the same similarities provide the greatest points of differences among religions. The author’s argue that although there may be visible similarities between two or more religions, if critically analyzed these similarities will depict the differences in beliefs.
However, as if it was meant intentionally to create a vague argument, the authors have not provided or outlined a specific definition of religion so that the audience can understand their argument. The discussion in the book is not clear because it lacks an apparent working definition of the subject.
The subject of religion and antinationalism cannot be fully interrogated without a specific clarity on the terminologies used in the book. Clarity enhances the readers’ understanding in general hence helping them to form an opinion.
Zhuangzi and Kierkegaard antirationalists’ ideologies are highly dependent on the extent of the readers’ understanding of the word religion. There is also a paradox of ideas in the book. The book acknowledges that there is a great danger in comparing traditions that have almost the same beliefs with regard to religion.
However, the authors do not seem to mind when a comparison between two traditions which are significantly different. The inconsistency develops in the sense that all traditions must be different. However, the authors make a good case when they argue that different traditions can have similarities and these similarities are the characteristics that qualify them to be religions.
This argument has held a lot of weight in terms of defining religion. In order to qualify a tradition as a religious activity, there must be a common definition of what a religious activity entails. From that point, the authors are justified to assert that the similarities in the traditions of religions make them different when analyzed extensively.
There are shared features between religious traditions because all religions share their specific functions and the range of needs met are similar. The authors explore the shortcomings and inconsistencies of the senseless attachment to conventional forms of norms.
Kierkegaard argues that the Christian form of religion should be reintroduced because currently its followers are only honorary. He argues that Christians follow their religious path as a result of a seductive promise of comfort from the prevailing earthly problems.
Carr Karen and Philip Ivanhoe have introduced the book by criticizing its methodology of refuting the viability of realistic aspects of religious beliefs. According to them, the explanation given to show that realism cannot qualify as a religious setting does not suffice. However, both arguments are points of debate from all perspectives.