Salvaging and secularizing the semantic contents of religion: the limitations of Habermas’s postmetaphysical proposal

Abstract

The article considers Jürgen Habermas's views on the relationship between postmetaphysical philosophy and religion. It outlines Habermas's shift from his earlier, apparently dismissive attitude towards religion to his presently more receptive stance. This more receptive stance is evident in his recent emphasis on critical engagement with the semantic contents of religion and may be characterized by two interrelated theses: (a) the view that religious contributions should be included in political deliberations in the informally organized public spheres of contemporary democracies, though translated into a secular language for the purposes of legislation and formal decision making and (b) the view that postmetaphysical philosophy should seek to salvage the semantic contents of religious traditions in order to supply the evocative images, exemplary figures, and inspirational narratives it needs for its social and political projects. With regard to (a), it argues that the translation requirement impairs the political autonomy of religious believers and other metaphysically inclined citizens, suggesting that this difficulty could be alleviated by making a distinction between epistemologically authoritarian and non-authoritarian religious beliefs. With regard to (b), it argues that the salvaging operation is not as straightforward as Habermas seems to suppose and that social and political philosophy may not be able to tap the semantic power of religious traditions without relying on metaphysical assumptions; it concludes that, here, too, a distinction between authoritarian and non-authoritarian approaches to knowledge and validity may be useful.In a number of recent essays Jürgen Habermas examines the relationship between religion and philosophy, in particular, between religion and those modes of social and

Gender Equality in the Inheritance Debate in Tunisia and the Formation of Non-Authoritarian Reasoning

“…Scholars such as Darren Walhof (2013), who studied the debate of the same-sex marriage in USA, rightly pointed out that "theology, politics and the identity of a religious community are all tied up with each other, as religious leaders and citizens apply and reformulate their theologies in new political contexts" (Walhof 2013, 229). Maeve Cooke (2006) states that the problem of religious positions is that they tend to be authoritarian and dogmatic in their formulation. Habermas, on the other hand, thought the problem was that they appealed to a single non-shared framework.…”

The Reconciliation of Religious and Secular Reasons as a Form of Epistemic Openness: Insights From Examples in the Philippines

“…Through a critique of postmetaphysical thinking, Maeve Cooke sets up her main objection against Habermas. She notes: ‘Evidently, there is a potential tension here between the plurality of types of reasons that are deemed appropriate in political discourses, the alleged lack of general acceptability of some of these types of reasons, and the posited link between political validity and general acceptability.’ What Cooke highlights here is that despite its claim of a greater openness to multiple kinds of reasons, particularly religious reasons, there is an incompatibility that arises due to the rejection by postmetaphysical thinking of transcendence and transcendent thinking in a metaphysical, otherworldly sense. Postmetaphysical thinking does admit and in fact depend on a different kind of context‐transcendence, whose reference point for its validity claims is something internal to human practices and human history.…”

How postmetaphysical can God-talk be?

“…If we acknowledge the fluidity between science and theology, God-talk and empirical science, then the picture is much more fluid, which is the crux of postmetaphysical thinking. This shift is summarised by Cooke (2006):…”