The Paradox in Writing on Religion

Abstract

Paradox, a subject that has intrigued philosophers and scientists since ancient times, not long ago also captured the attention of many literary critics and historians of religion. A key analytic term among the old New Critics, paradox—along with irony and ambiguity—was for decades taken as central to poetic language, the force of which was understood to derive from the play of multiple, often contradictory meanings. In history of religions, a concept of paradox was essential in the monumental work of Mircea Eliade, who repeatedly pointed to the power of conjoined opposites in myth. To many scholars in both fields, these paradoxes of poetry and myth have by now become passe—taken for granted, perhaps, but no longer topics for further exploration. They gain new significance, however, with the increasing interest in the critical study of academic writing over the last few years. For despite the hard-minded academic stance found in much contemporary religio-historical writing, the paradoxes familiar from religion and literature still often come into play, indeed, sometimes to explore striking contradictions that are posed in the fashion of paradoxes from science.