Peter Berger–What Happens when a Leftist Philosopher Discovers God?

[Philippe] Portier distinguishes three phases in [Juergen ] Habermas’ treatment of religion. In phase one, lasting up to the early 1980s, he still viewed religion as an “alienating reality”, a tool of domination for the powerful. In good Marxist tradition, he thought that religion would eventually disappear, as modern society comes to be based on “communicative rationality” and no longer needs the old irrational illusions. In phase two, roughly 1985-2000, this anti-religious animus is muted. Religion now is seen as unlikely to disappear, because many people (though presumably not Habermas) continue to need its consolations. The public sphere, however, must be exclusively dominated by rationality. Religion must be relegated to private life. One could say that in this phase, at least in the matter of religion, Habermas graduated from Marxism to the French ideal of laicite””the public life of the republic kept antiseptically clean of religious contamination.

Phase three is more interesting. As of the late 1990s Habermas’ view of religion is more benign. Religion is now seen as having a useful public function, quite apart from its private consolations. The “colonization” of society by “turbo-capitalism” (nice term””I don’t know if Habermas coined it) has created a cultural crisis and has undermined the solidarity without which democratic rationality cannot function. We are now moving into a “post-secular society”, which can make good use of the “moral intuition” that religion still supplies.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, Philosophy, Religion & Culture

One comment on “Peter Berger–What Happens when a Leftist Philosopher Discovers God?

  1. Hursley says:

    An interesting article (and comments at the originating site), and a reason for me to continue coming to this blog. Thank you, Fr. Kendall (or whoever posted it) for making it available. I rather like the notion of both “turbo-capitalism” and a “post-secular” society. Both seem to be good descriptors of the facts in evidence.