My objection to Otto's thesis is his assertion that the numinous experience is a priori in character, "not to be derived from 'experience' or 'history.'"Put another way, the raw data from which we derive conceptual knowledge can be attained by non-empirical, non-sensory means.He also denies this process is in any way supernatural.
This position is derived from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and is what, more than any other idea, makes possible the antagonism between science and religion.What is needed is an epistemology which expands a rational empiricism to include experiences of such impalbables as religious awe and the apprehension of beauty.
Apart from this disagreement, Otto's explication of the numinous experience, philosophically, psychologically and historically is fascinating and illuminating.I especially appreciated his examples from art, music and literature.The fact that his explication brings out so clearly the philosophical issue with which I disagree is of great value.This is a valuable and seminal work of theology.
eBook The Idea of the Holy