Carl-Johan Palmqvist (forthcoming) recently examines a well-known form of non-doxastic religiosity called ultimism, which comes to us from J. L Schellenberg. He contends that traditional forms of religion are better candidates for non-doxastic religion for two reasons. First, their specificity makes them more likely to put one into contact with transcendental reality than ultimism. Second, religious experience can only be on traditional forms of religion, not on ultimism. I argue that Palmqvist’s rejection of ultimism is wrong. It’s false that ultimism isn’t specific enough to put one into contact with transcendental reality (if there is one). It’s also false that there aren’t religious experiences consistent with ultimism, but not with traditional forms of religion. There might be reasons for preferring traditional forms of religion to ultimism; however, Palmqvist fails to demonstrate that this is the case.

中文翻译：

---

谢伦伯格的终极主义作为非正统宗教的正确对象

Carl-Johan Palmqvist（即将出版）最近研究了一种著名的非正统宗教，称为终极主义，它来自 J. L Schellenberg。他认为，传统形式的宗教更适合非正统宗教，原因有二。第一，他们的特殊性使他们比终极主义更有可能与超验现实接触。其次，宗教经验只能是传统形式的宗教，而不是终极主义。我认为 Palmqvist 拒绝极端主义是错误的。终极主义不够具体，不足以让一个人接触超验现实（如果有的话），这是错误的。没有与终极主义相一致的宗教体验，但与传统宗教形式无关，这也是错误的。偏爱传统宗教形式而不是终极主义可能是有原因的；