I have nothing really to add, as I think you wrote a very good summary of the book.
Though one random tidbit that came to mind as I was reading this, which isn't at all an argument or a gripe, but rather a reflection. Specifically, on the notion of there even being a such thing as a "monotheistic religious experience." Rather I think there is simply religious experience and the person having an experience will typically frame that experience though whatever mythical framework their culture happens to favor at the time. So a person in a monotheistic culture has some sort of experience and will very very likely (assuming they chose to share this with others) apply a monotheistic theological overlay to that experience.
Perhaps this distinction is one of the reasons (among several others) Paper finds monotheism to be the main source of close-mindedness when it comes to how we experience and explain the numinous. I guess we could also use this logic to say that a polytheistic theology can also put someone's religious experiences in a box (what if the person has an experience that doesn't fit their culture's pantheon??), though not nearly to the degree as the former might. Though to be fair, I would add that mystics will probably be done dirty by ANY sort of fixed theology. So yeah, I totally get why Paper expands the definition of theology to be something massively experiential.
no subject
I have nothing really to add, as I think you wrote a very good summary of the book.
Though one random tidbit that came to mind as I was reading this, which isn't at all an argument or a gripe, but rather a reflection. Specifically, on the notion of there even being a such thing as a "monotheistic religious experience." Rather I think there is simply religious experience and the person having an experience will typically frame that experience though whatever mythical framework their culture happens to favor at the time. So a person in a monotheistic culture has some sort of experience and will very very likely (assuming they chose to share this with others) apply a monotheistic theological overlay to that experience.
Perhaps this distinction is one of the reasons (among several others) Paper finds monotheism to be the main source of close-mindedness when it comes to how we experience and explain the numinous. I guess we could also use this logic to say that a polytheistic theology can also put someone's religious experiences in a box (what if the person has an experience that doesn't fit their culture's pantheon??), though not nearly to the degree as the former might. Though to be fair, I would add that mystics will probably be done dirty by ANY sort of fixed theology. So yeah, I totally get why Paper expands the definition of theology to be something massively experiential.