From PhilPapers forum Philosophy of Religion:

2009-11-20
A theory of religion
Hi Bob

You are tending to ascribe to me positions I don't hold.

I am not "attached to the idea of (something like) a Romantically alien and inaccessible "other." (Though I confess I don't quite know what that means.)

Also my claim has not been that "people who belong to different and perhaps historically prior and posterior cultures can't be expected to [understand one another, more or less]". I have been speaking specifically about dead religions.  Whether or not we understand other cultures (ie more broadly) is a different question - though I should add that the view that we can't is by no means out of the question. (There is a fascinating article on this by Peter Winch - on the Azande). 

I should add that you "gradation" argument - if I understand it correctly - does not establish the case for something permanent enduring throughout all cultures. X can overlap with Y, and Y with Z without anything overlapping between X and Z (not to mention A and Z...)

My criticisms have been directed at the claim that we can somehow "capture" what is common to all religions through general concepts such as "supramundane realities", "practices" etc.  I think this allows us to capture everything about a religion except what is important. 

DA