Kick your (a)theism up a notch: go "post-secular"!
May 14, 2007 2:21 PM Subscribe
Habermas debated the Pope (pdf) when he was just Ratzinger. In German. In Spanish. In English. Summaries: 1, 2. Money quote: "Secular society must acquire a new understanding of religious convictions" (Habermas) while avoiding the "pathologies of reason and religion." (Ratzinger)
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- loup
Ratzingerfilter.
posted by Nahum Tate at 2:52 PM on May 14, 2007
posted by Nahum Tate at 2:52 PM on May 14, 2007
Much of any pope core audience isn't sophisticated enough (while still being intelligent) to appreciate advanced discussions between advanced intellectes on not-daily topics. One shouldn't exclusively focus on the fact a pope can be a skilful, intelligent, erudite person ..but rather focus on how he treats his audience, with a paternalistic, simplistic attitude that is based on an assumption of superiority of few and statistical inferiority of the many others ..(dressed as difference, but still...)
It's not ONLY about educating people and giving them some sound moral code...that's just an effect of another objective, which imho is directing tought, forbidding certain developements in favour of an unnatural normalization of behaviors.
posted by elpapacito at 2:57 PM on May 14, 2007
It's not ONLY about educating people and giving them some sound moral code...that's just an effect of another objective, which imho is directing tought, forbidding certain developements in favour of an unnatural normalization of behaviors.
posted by elpapacito at 2:57 PM on May 14, 2007
Pastabagel, I don't see any of the world's religions demonstrating a desire to change policy when it comes to sex. Hell, I can't even name a single religion that allows women into the upper power structures.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:00 PM on May 14, 2007
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:00 PM on May 14, 2007
I don't know about the protestant church in the US, but there is a female bishop in Hamburg or Hannover (the latter recently got divorced but is apparently remaining in her position as state bishop). And i guess there are others in the Scandinavian countries...
posted by kolophon at 3:28 PM on May 14, 2007
posted by kolophon at 3:28 PM on May 14, 2007
(I wanted to say "Hamburg and Hannover". But they are still exceptions rather than rule I guess)
posted by kolophon at 3:33 PM on May 14, 2007
posted by kolophon at 3:33 PM on May 14, 2007
Christopher Hitchens won't like this.
As near as I can tell, Habermas thinks that secular society has gone overboard, and Ratzinger was happy to agree. Supposedly, when religion is banned from public discourse, people are less willing/able to understand each other, which leads to more conflict. In addition, he wonders if modern states are capable of acting ethically in the complete absence of religion. Ratzinger seems to think that a greater respect for the western religious tradition will help the west deal with non-western (read: Islamic) cultures more easily. However, it seems that Benedict is willing to offer little in return, given his complete unwillingness to compromise on any of the practical issues (like birth control in Africa, the biological origin of homosexuality, etc) that science criticizes the Church on.
posted by gsteff at 3:49 PM on May 14, 2007
As near as I can tell, Habermas thinks that secular society has gone overboard, and Ratzinger was happy to agree. Supposedly, when religion is banned from public discourse, people are less willing/able to understand each other, which leads to more conflict. In addition, he wonders if modern states are capable of acting ethically in the complete absence of religion. Ratzinger seems to think that a greater respect for the western religious tradition will help the west deal with non-western (read: Islamic) cultures more easily. However, it seems that Benedict is willing to offer little in return, given his complete unwillingness to compromise on any of the practical issues (like birth control in Africa, the biological origin of homosexuality, etc) that science criticizes the Church on.
posted by gsteff at 3:49 PM on May 14, 2007
Hell, I can't even name a single religion that allows women into the upper power structures.
The United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination in the country. Women have been part of the upper power structure for decades.
posted by watsondog at 4:04 PM on May 14, 2007
The United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination in the country. Women have been part of the upper power structure for decades.
posted by watsondog at 4:04 PM on May 14, 2007
I think 'secularization' is a hypothesis, not a fact; moreover, it is a hypothesis that most contemporary sociology of religion has rejected. Beyond a certain point, Western societies show a remarkable reluctance to secularize.
given his complete unwillingness to compromise on any of the practical issues (like birth control in Africa, the biological origin of homosexuality, etc) that science criticizes the Church on.
I'm an atheist, but I object to this formulation of the question. Birth control and homosexuality are not scientific issues, they are political issues. Scientists haven't yet definitively located a "gay gene"-- this is not proof that it doesn't exist, but we know for certain that tendencies toward being attracted to the same gender do not manifest themselves in the same way in every society. Religious opponents of homosexuality object to the act, not the tendency.
A major part of the reason why the Church objects to the concept of "biological origin" is that the Ratzinger papacy is very much committed to resisting the scientization of discourse, which is a "pathology of reason." It is also why it opposes stem cell research, genetic engineering, and so on. Attacking these positions without an understanding of their underlying philosophy is uncharitable, counterproductive (it shows that the Church has a point), and shows a reluctance to constructively engage the full impact of science on our views of the world and of human beings.
posted by nasreddin at 4:07 PM on May 14, 2007
given his complete unwillingness to compromise on any of the practical issues (like birth control in Africa, the biological origin of homosexuality, etc) that science criticizes the Church on.
I'm an atheist, but I object to this formulation of the question. Birth control and homosexuality are not scientific issues, they are political issues. Scientists haven't yet definitively located a "gay gene"-- this is not proof that it doesn't exist, but we know for certain that tendencies toward being attracted to the same gender do not manifest themselves in the same way in every society. Religious opponents of homosexuality object to the act, not the tendency.
A major part of the reason why the Church objects to the concept of "biological origin" is that the Ratzinger papacy is very much committed to resisting the scientization of discourse, which is a "pathology of reason." It is also why it opposes stem cell research, genetic engineering, and so on. Attacking these positions without an understanding of their underlying philosophy is uncharitable, counterproductive (it shows that the Church has a point), and shows a reluctance to constructively engage the full impact of science on our views of the world and of human beings.
posted by nasreddin at 4:07 PM on May 14, 2007
Hell, I can't even name a single religion that allows women into the upper power structures.
Australian aboriginal women have their own body of knowledge & ritual - womens' business - that is theirs exclusively, as do the men. I expect that many traditional religions are probably similar.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:40 PM on May 14, 2007
Australian aboriginal women have their own body of knowledge & ritual - womens' business - that is theirs exclusively, as do the men. I expect that many traditional religions are probably similar.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:40 PM on May 14, 2007
Christopher Hitchens won't like this.
He's busy over at Fox, so maybe he won't notice.
posted by homunculus at 5:22 PM on May 14, 2007
He's busy over at Fox, so maybe he won't notice.
posted by homunculus at 5:22 PM on May 14, 2007
Not much to add - a good deal’s been expressed well.
I’ve always enjoyed reading Habermas, but it’s only in contrast to Ratzinger do I notice that, in name, he sounds like one of the anti-heros in a teen summer movie whereas Ratzinger sounds like the bumbling authority figure.
Lyotard and Gadamer helping Habermas to steal the Heidigger float.
“Suck it, Rat-zinger!” *taunts*
“Ha-Ber-Maaaas!” *shakes fist in air*
posted by Smedleyman at 6:02 PM on May 14, 2007 [2 favorites]
I’ve always enjoyed reading Habermas, but it’s only in contrast to Ratzinger do I notice that, in name, he sounds like one of the anti-heros in a teen summer movie whereas Ratzinger sounds like the bumbling authority figure.
Lyotard and Gadamer helping Habermas to steal the Heidigger float.
“Suck it, Rat-zinger!” *taunts*
“Ha-Ber-Maaaas!” *shakes fist in air*
posted by Smedleyman at 6:02 PM on May 14, 2007 [2 favorites]
public life avoids controversial religious metaphysics in favor of concrete and boring policy matters, peppered with divisive political issues to mobilize constituencies and produce legitimacy contestation and polemical attachment.
In the United States this is true, but it wasn't the case in Europe 30-40 years ago (although it has become more like the US in this regard). Here were are confusing the consumer society with privatization or secularization.
I'll take a stab at your challenge, anotherpanacea. Secularization the way I mean it refers to those aspects of life which substantially lack a spiritual dimension in fact. With respect to the Gregorian reforms, while there is/was doctrinal logic to support consolidation of authority in the apparatuses of the Church, there was no doctrinal logic to do so to the exclusion of secular matters. There was however enormous secular logic to motivate such activity, namely consolidation of holdings and power as they were distributed across the vastness of continental Europe.
Westerners in general have begun to make policy with no compass other than science,
I think you're onto something here, but not in the way you suggest. We need some philosophy better than "good" and "bad" here that is internally consistent in a way the Church hasn't been, ever. Science is rapidly enabling everything imaginable, including the horrible. But what is guiding the progress? What sets the direction of advancement? Now, it's profits and calculation. That's clearly not going to work. But the Bible isn't either, nor are proclamations from religious elders. It's wonderful that "Habermas is only asking that we go back to our roots and attempt to translate our private senses of the Good back into public discourse" but doesn't that only work for Europeans and Americans who are at least conversant with Western Civ's dominant religious tradition? Does it work for the sociopath, whose lack of a moral compass finds him better suited to navigate a corporate/consumer society without the guilt or hesitation the rest of us feel?
posted by Pastabagel at 6:50 PM on May 14, 2007
In the United States this is true, but it wasn't the case in Europe 30-40 years ago (although it has become more like the US in this regard). Here were are confusing the consumer society with privatization or secularization.
I'll take a stab at your challenge, anotherpanacea. Secularization the way I mean it refers to those aspects of life which substantially lack a spiritual dimension in fact. With respect to the Gregorian reforms, while there is/was doctrinal logic to support consolidation of authority in the apparatuses of the Church, there was no doctrinal logic to do so to the exclusion of secular matters. There was however enormous secular logic to motivate such activity, namely consolidation of holdings and power as they were distributed across the vastness of continental Europe.
Westerners in general have begun to make policy with no compass other than science,
I think you're onto something here, but not in the way you suggest. We need some philosophy better than "good" and "bad" here that is internally consistent in a way the Church hasn't been, ever. Science is rapidly enabling everything imaginable, including the horrible. But what is guiding the progress? What sets the direction of advancement? Now, it's profits and calculation. That's clearly not going to work. But the Bible isn't either, nor are proclamations from religious elders. It's wonderful that "Habermas is only asking that we go back to our roots and attempt to translate our private senses of the Good back into public discourse" but doesn't that only work for Europeans and Americans who are at least conversant with Western Civ's dominant religious tradition? Does it work for the sociopath, whose lack of a moral compass finds him better suited to navigate a corporate/consumer society without the guilt or hesitation the rest of us feel?
posted by Pastabagel at 6:50 PM on May 14, 2007
to make policy with no compass other than science
Science doesn't give direction , but can provide some facts. For instance a fact is that an human being needs , on average, a certain (in a range) amount of calories and combination of proteins+carbohydrates+vitamins on a daily basis or they will suffer some kind of disease or die.
The amount may be disputable, even the optimal composition and distribution for each human being may vary.Yet no matter how you look at it , it's an undeniable fact with undeniable consequences.
Is it good to feed humans ? Is it bad ? I leave the question to philosophers, while I wil focus on this : humans will do almost anything to satisfy hunger, so no matter what any God says, if he doesn't provide food, they will look for some other or get their own.
Similarly consumistic society address most of the basic needs and also stimulate demand for goods that are to some level enjoyable, but not strictly necessary to an "healthy" psycophysical survival.
Yet as many are now very much dependant, not only psycologically, from certain providers of good ...these provider have acquired immense powers of decision, sometime becoming more powerful then states , but without bothering with all the legislative, administrative and social tasks that would only increase costs by create troubles.
My guess is that it's actually a lot cheaper to _pay_ taxes (the least possible of course) then getting the risk of responding _contractually_ to some social obligations such as social security. Politicians just respond poltically by being fired...big fucking deal.
posted by elpapacito at 7:30 PM on May 14, 2007
Science doesn't give direction , but can provide some facts. For instance a fact is that an human being needs , on average, a certain (in a range) amount of calories and combination of proteins+carbohydrates+vitamins on a daily basis or they will suffer some kind of disease or die.
The amount may be disputable, even the optimal composition and distribution for each human being may vary.Yet no matter how you look at it , it's an undeniable fact with undeniable consequences.
Is it good to feed humans ? Is it bad ? I leave the question to philosophers, while I wil focus on this : humans will do almost anything to satisfy hunger, so no matter what any God says, if he doesn't provide food, they will look for some other or get their own.
Similarly consumistic society address most of the basic needs and also stimulate demand for goods that are to some level enjoyable, but not strictly necessary to an "healthy" psycophysical survival.
Yet as many are now very much dependant, not only psycologically, from certain providers of good ...these provider have acquired immense powers of decision, sometime becoming more powerful then states , but without bothering with all the legislative, administrative and social tasks that would only increase costs by create troubles.
My guess is that it's actually a lot cheaper to _pay_ taxes (the least possible of course) then getting the risk of responding _contractually_ to some social obligations such as social security. Politicians just respond poltically by being fired...big fucking deal.
posted by elpapacito at 7:30 PM on May 14, 2007
Yeah, Pastabagel, I think you've overdetermined your results: secular logic becomes the justification for whatever regimes do at whatever point they do them
Not so fast, I'm not as fixed in my opinions as you may think. I think when you talk about the Church, you have to be careful because the Church has interests that often conflict with the good.
Why oppose birth control when it's hugely popular and makes the Catholics look obsolete and fuddy-duddy? You'll say that pregnancy rates are a surer route to parishoners than popularity...
I won't say that. It opposes birth control because sex without consequences eliminates the church's power over people. To paraphrase Orwell, if you're having sex, you don't care about religion. The Church (not the religion, but the institution) has to control sex because through that you control people. And it's not just birth control, it's also masturbation and pre/extra-marital sex which are condemned. But the Church does not expect its parishoners to refrain from this (because it would be impossible for a large number of people to do so consistently, given human nature), what it expects, and instills, is guilt. Guilt drives people back to the church for confession and absolution. Guilt makes for good parishoners, because people are programmed to turn to the church to be free of that guilt. You use the term 'doctrinal', but I'm not sure what you mean. By my reading, much of doctrine is rather arbitrary, post-hoc thinking, though the previous Pope appeared to have some consistency that it was better to promote life and joy of life than to promote death, and that we were doing the latter, but I get the sense that Ratzinger is more of an authoritarian than a philosopher.
But your point is actually a very valid one - "that Christianity, like all religions, preserves a sense of the good life in the midst of all that nonsense and ritual. " I agree completely, and I would go further to say that the symbology and mythology are vital to preserve and to teach, the way classical greek and roman myths are worth teaching and preserving. The Christian story is our culture whether we are atheists or priests. It is the archetype of self-sacrifice for the greater good, that sacrifice being the ultimate good.
The peasants types preserve this better than others perhaps because they are closer to being free of the trappings of secular life, e.g. the homeless man is not burdened wit hteh home mortgage, or furnishing it, etc. He has other concerns of course, but they are more vital, in a sense, because they are directed at the root of all human existence - food, shelter, companionship.
Americans have, as you put it, a vague sense that it's better to be rich than to be poor, but they lack the spiritual dimension to their lives (I was careful to use this word throughout my comments) that would determine what rich is. Rich is not high score on the bank account game. Rich is a life of relationships and connections to others and some pursuit of the meaning of it all.
So for you, is it better to be an artist, or a business man? Let's generalize the question - is it better to pursue the pure ideal and fail, or the practical solution to the reality and more likely succeed?
posted by Pastabagel at 8:05 PM on May 14, 2007
Not so fast, I'm not as fixed in my opinions as you may think. I think when you talk about the Church, you have to be careful because the Church has interests that often conflict with the good.
Why oppose birth control when it's hugely popular and makes the Catholics look obsolete and fuddy-duddy? You'll say that pregnancy rates are a surer route to parishoners than popularity...
I won't say that. It opposes birth control because sex without consequences eliminates the church's power over people. To paraphrase Orwell, if you're having sex, you don't care about religion. The Church (not the religion, but the institution) has to control sex because through that you control people. And it's not just birth control, it's also masturbation and pre/extra-marital sex which are condemned. But the Church does not expect its parishoners to refrain from this (because it would be impossible for a large number of people to do so consistently, given human nature), what it expects, and instills, is guilt. Guilt drives people back to the church for confession and absolution. Guilt makes for good parishoners, because people are programmed to turn to the church to be free of that guilt. You use the term 'doctrinal', but I'm not sure what you mean. By my reading, much of doctrine is rather arbitrary, post-hoc thinking, though the previous Pope appeared to have some consistency that it was better to promote life and joy of life than to promote death, and that we were doing the latter, but I get the sense that Ratzinger is more of an authoritarian than a philosopher.
But your point is actually a very valid one - "that Christianity, like all religions, preserves a sense of the good life in the midst of all that nonsense and ritual. " I agree completely, and I would go further to say that the symbology and mythology are vital to preserve and to teach, the way classical greek and roman myths are worth teaching and preserving. The Christian story is our culture whether we are atheists or priests. It is the archetype of self-sacrifice for the greater good, that sacrifice being the ultimate good.
The peasants types preserve this better than others perhaps because they are closer to being free of the trappings of secular life, e.g. the homeless man is not burdened wit hteh home mortgage, or furnishing it, etc. He has other concerns of course, but they are more vital, in a sense, because they are directed at the root of all human existence - food, shelter, companionship.
Americans have, as you put it, a vague sense that it's better to be rich than to be poor, but they lack the spiritual dimension to their lives (I was careful to use this word throughout my comments) that would determine what rich is. Rich is not high score on the bank account game. Rich is a life of relationships and connections to others and some pursuit of the meaning of it all.
So for you, is it better to be an artist, or a business man? Let's generalize the question - is it better to pursue the pure ideal and fail, or the practical solution to the reality and more likely succeed?
posted by Pastabagel at 8:05 PM on May 14, 2007
Why oppose birth control when it's hugely popular and makes the Catholics look obsolete and fuddy-duddy?
Let me clarify this point - I don't think the Church cares whether it appears obsolete to non-Catholics, and guilt is the mechanism by which is becomes very real and very relevant to the lives of its parishoners.
In a way actually, the Churhc is a prisoner of it's past success - it can't afford to lost all those churches and infrastructure around the world, so it deploys a strategy of keeping Catholics in the Church in Europe and the US where it raises most of its money.
But contrast, Orthodox churches, never having had the secular dominance enjoyed by the Catholic church for centuries, have retained the original dogma of 'pursuit of the mystery', and by remaining focused on spiritiual matters in the individual and family lives of its parishoners have been able to attract substantial numbers of converts from every other major religion.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:11 PM on May 14, 2007
Let me clarify this point - I don't think the Church cares whether it appears obsolete to non-Catholics, and guilt is the mechanism by which is becomes very real and very relevant to the lives of its parishoners.
In a way actually, the Churhc is a prisoner of it's past success - it can't afford to lost all those churches and infrastructure around the world, so it deploys a strategy of keeping Catholics in the Church in Europe and the US where it raises most of its money.
But contrast, Orthodox churches, never having had the secular dominance enjoyed by the Catholic church for centuries, have retained the original dogma of 'pursuit of the mystery', and by remaining focused on spiritiual matters in the individual and family lives of its parishoners have been able to attract substantial numbers of converts from every other major religion.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:11 PM on May 14, 2007
I wish people could talk about this sort of thing without the pointless pseud language and the italics on normal words to show how much extra meaning we're giving them cos omg we're so clever.
posted by reklaw at 2:41 AM on May 15, 2007
posted by reklaw at 2:41 AM on May 15, 2007
« Older Green Scare | No Laughing Matter Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
In the second summary, there is some discussion that seculiarzation led to a loss of Western culture, which "loss is evidenced in Western culture in violent 20th century wars, increasing moral decadence, and the rising threat of bioengineering".
First, the rhetoric on those wars, as in every war, was overtly religious. In addition, every war before the twentieth century was fought to the furthest extent technologically possible. The apparent brutality is simply a function of technology.
Secondly, when people use the phrase "moral decadence" they need to articulate their meaning. I believe this blogger is using the term to refer to sexual openness, not crime/murder/etc.
Religion (not Christian spirituality, but religion) needs to come to terms with the role of sex in life. Sex is the subtext of every political issue which today implicates religion. Until religion can move beyond its paternalist, dark age roots, it cannot intelligently inform the discussion of these issues.
Lastly, I emphasize rhetoric above because in my view the political order has always been secular, even when the political order was controlled by the papacy in Rome. The rhetoric was religious, but in the end, politics is a function of economics and power distribution, which depending on your viewpoint, has everything or nothing to do with religion.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:46 PM on May 14, 2007 [1 favorite]