{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017651573292402148, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0023023791250959325, 'mean_word_length': 5.360975609756098, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Transcendence and freedom: on the anthropological and cultural centrality of religion

The fact that rigorous philosophical thinking is not possible without reference to transcendence, as it is also expressed in the notion of God, was already instilled in platonic and neo-platonic antiquity, which emphasised the dependence of human thought on transcendence. Defenders of religion in modernity have called to mind these references to transcendence with respect to the systematic of human thinking in a move counter to the modern critique of religion, and have concentrated on the definition and clarification of a concept of religion. In the German Enlightenment, the critique of religion was therefore not committed to its dismissal but rather the self-illumination of the status of religion, much differently than in France, where a radical critique of religion was brought forward by the circle around the Encyclopédistes and Voltaire, or in England by David Hume.1 These differences make it clear that religion need not fall victim to Enlightenment critiques,2 as the so-called ‘New Atheists’ maintain today by means of old arguments.3 On the contrary, the conceptual clarification of religion can itself also prove to be a critical undertaking, namely, by permeating religio-theoretical aspects of