2004
Volume 75, Issue 3/4
  • ISSN: 2542-6583
  • E-ISSN: 2590-3268

Abstract

Abstract

This essay first outlines the distinctive and significant features of Taylor’s interpretation of modernity and secularization, especially, his emphasis on the immanent frame within a naturalism closed to transcendence. The essay then offers some different perspectives, not intended as a critique of Taylor, but rather to underscore elements in need of greater emphasis. My perspective acknowledges more lines of continuity between modernity and previous times. Traditional theological affirmations of infinity, omnipresence, and creativity have in the past spurred negative and apophatic theologies. They have also sought an interpretation of transcendence as embedded in the world of nature and human life in ways that point to the sacral and sacramental character of the world and human behavior. These interpretations can be retrieved to think the modern world as suffused with transcendence. Transcendence is not closed to modern buffered selves. Many exemplify a transcendence that goes beyond their own interests. They are aware of their finitude and realize that transcendence is a mystery.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NTT2021.3/4.004.FIOR
2021-09-01
2022-08-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Afshari, Reza. “On Historiography of Human Rights: Reflections on Paul Gordon Lauren’s ‘The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen’,”Human Rights Quarterly29, no. 1 (February2007): 1-67.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aquinas, Thomas. The Book of Causes [Liber de causis]. Introduction and translation by DennisJ. Brand. Rev. ed. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University, 1981; 1984.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on the Book of Causes. Translated and annotated by VincentA. Guagliardo, CharlesR. Hess and RichardC. Taylor. Washington, DC: Catholic University of American Press, 1996.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae, part I. Translated and edited by ThomasGilby O.P.Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Assmann, Jan.From Akhenaten to Moses: Ancient Egypt and Religious Change. Cairo: The American University in Cairo, 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, Joseph O., and BusterG. Smith. “The Nones: Social Characteristics of the Religiously Unaffiliated,”Social Forces87, no. 3 (2009): 1-13.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barron, Marcia W.Kantian Ethics almost without Apology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bellah, Robert N., and HansJoas, eds. The Axial Age and Its Consequences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dreher, Rod. The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation. New York: Penguin Random House, 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Eisenstadt, Shmuel N.Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations. Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1986.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Farmer, Paul.Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Farmer, Paul., and GustavoGutierrez. The Company of the Poor: Conversations with Dr. Paul Farmer and Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez. edited by MichaelGriffin and JennieWeiss Block. New York: Orbis Books, 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Grab, Wilhelm.“The Transformation of Religious Culture within Modern Societies: From Secularism to Postsecularism.” In Exploring the Postsecular: The Religious, the Political, and the Urban, edited by ArieMolendijk, JustinBeaumont, and ChristophJedan, 113-129. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Haughton, Rosemary Luling.“Transcendence and the Bewilderment of Being Modern.” In A Catholic Modernity? Charles Taylor’s Marianist Award Lecture, edited by JamesL. Heft, 65-81. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hermann, Barbara. The Practice of Moral Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Hachette, 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hout, Michael, and ClaudeS. Fischer. “Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations,”American Sociological Review67, no. 2 (2002): 165-90.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Illingworth, Patricia M.L., ThomasPogge and LeifWenar. Giving Well. The Ethics of Philanthropy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jaspers, Karl.The Origin and Goal of History. Rev. ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953; London: Routledge, 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lauren, Paul. The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Noonan, John Thomas. A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Novalis. Philosophical Writings. Translated by MargaretMahony Stoljar. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1997.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Pew Research Center. “America’s Changing Religious Landscape.” Accessed November29, 2018. https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Pew Research Center. “The Religious Dimensions of the Torture Debate.” Accessed November29, 2018. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/29/the-religious-dimensions-of-the-torture-debate.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Pinker, Steven. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. New York: Penguin Random House, 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Pöggeler, Otto. Hegels Kritik der Romantik. 2nd ed. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1956; 1999.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pogge, Thomas. World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. Malden, MA: Polity, 2002.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Pogge, Thomas, ed., Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right: Who Owes What to the Very Poor?Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rahner, Karl.“Reflections on the Unity of the Love of Neighbor and the Love of God.” In Theological Investigations, vol. 6, 231-248. Baltimore: Helicon, 1969.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rahner, Karl.. Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity. New York: Seabury Press, 1978.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. New York: Harper and Row, 1958.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Schüssler Fiorenza, Francis. “The Transcendence of Experience or the Experience of Transcendence: Negotiating the Difference.” In Religious Experience and Contemporary Theological Epistemology, edited by LievenBoeve, YvesDe Maeseneer and StijnVan den Bossche, 183-218. Louvain: Peeters, 2005.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Schüssler Fiorenza, Francis. “Political Theology and Postsecularism.” In The Routledge Handbook of Postsecularity, edited by JustinBeaumont, 177-189. London: Routledge, 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Schüssler Fiorenza, Francis, and GordonKaufman. “God.” In Critical Terms for Religious Studies, edited by MarkC. Taylor, 136-59. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Taylor, Charles. Hegel and Modern Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Taylor, Charles. The Malaise of Modernity. CBC Massey Lectures. Concord, ONT: Anansi, 1991.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Taylor, Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Taylor, Charles. “A Catholic Modernity?.” In ACatholic Modernity? Charles Taylor’s Marianist Award Lecture, edited by JamesL. Heft, 13-37. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Taylor, Charles. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Taylor, Charles. Dilemmas and Connections: Selected Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Taylor, Charles. “What does Secularism Mean?.” In Dilemmas and Connections: Selected Essays, 303-325. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Taylor, Charles. “Why We Need a Radical Redefinition of Secularism.” In The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere, edited by EduardoMendieta and JonathanVanantwerpen, 34-59. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Waltz, Susan. “Reclaiming and Rebuilding the History of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,”Third World Quarterly23, no. 3 (2002): 437-448.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Watson, Micah. “On Charles Taylor, A Secular Age – Secularism’s Fragile Buffered Selves,”Expositions3, no. 1 (2009): 97-105.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NTT2021.3/4.004.FIOR
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error