Blurb:

In this essay I attempt to say in deep appreciation why Otto’s description of the holy is so fascinating. Nevertheless, he is needlessly “transcendental” in a sense close to Kant’s use of that term, which I shall claim is a bad thing. How then can we have a non-transcendental, naturalist, theory of religion that supplies the background he needs for his description of the holy? I shall draft a sketch of an appropriate naturalistic theory that also accommodates the philosophic traditions of many of the world’s cultures.