beyond? horizon, immanence, and transcendencesense: it is about “taking the world.” Second, it is not about “some-
thing,” because it is about what it is “all about.” In a sense there is too
much “about” in order to specify what religion is about. The two kinds
of reason seem to go in opposite directions: human practice and infi-
nite totality. Yet, if practice is how we “take the world,” and if religion
is about this “taking the world,” the second point can be qualified in
terms of an infinity which encompasses and at the same time goes
beyond human affairs. This leads us back to the question of “beyond.”
Although there is something impossible about the question what re-
ligion is about, the problems we face tell something about religion.
Religion is reflective in the sense that people taking themselves to see
the world from a religious point of view can talk about what this
means, and they do so in terms of “beyond.” They do claim to have an
idea of what religion is all about.
Asking what religion is about is to look for what makes it into
religion. If we ask what religion as religion is about, we face the
question of beyond. If we seek to capture philosophically what religion
is about, the notion of transcendence seems to lend itself to an answer:
religion is about transcendence. But transcendence implies immanence;
it is transcendence in relation to immanence. Thus, the difference
between immanence and transcendence seems to offer itself as a clue
for a philosophical approach to religion. It seems to capture what
religion itself claims when talking about “beyond.”
As obvious as this approach might appear, it turns out to be prob-
lematic. If the difference between immanence and transcendence is to
serve as some sort of answer to the question about what religion as
religion is about, it opens up questions that make the answer all but
obvious. The difference itself is philosophically enigmatic. If tran-
scendence is transcendence in relation to immanence, how is it tran-
scendence? What does immanence mean if it can be turned into some
sort of sphere (either vis-à-vis transcendence or excluding transcend-
ence) or some sort of option (either transcendence or immanence)?
Already in reflecting on the character of the question about what
religion is about, we are engaged in a philosophical inquiry. Yet, a
philosophical approach to religion can also prevent us from asking
questions that need to be asked. This happens when it turns itself into
something natural telling what there is to religion, in claiming, for