Explorations in Post-Secular Metaphysics

Explorations in Post-Secular Metaphysics

This page intentionally left blank

Explorations in Post-Secular Metaphysics Josef Bengtson University of Southern Denmark

Josef Bengtson 2015 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6 10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2015 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave and Macmillan are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978-1-349-56049-3 ISBN 978-1-137-55336-2 (ebook) DOI 10.1057/9781137553362 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Contents Preface Acknowledgments vi viii 1 Introduction: Between Scientism and Fundamentalism 1 2 Whose Religion, Which Secular? 10 2.1 Post-secularism 13 2.2 Metaphysics 18 2.3 Difference and metaphysics 23 3 Phenomenology and Overlapping Consensus 27 3.1 Charles Taylor 27 3.2 Ontology and difference 39 3.3 Taylor s post-secularism in practice 46 4 Analogy and Corporatist Pluralism 53 4.1 John Milbank 53 4.2 Milbank s metaphysics 61 4.3 Milbank s post-secularism in practice 68 5 Becoming and Rhizomatic Pluralism 75 5.1 William Connolly 75 5.2 William Connolly s ontology 86 5.3 William Connolly s post-secularism in practice 93 6 Post-Secular Visions 103 6.1 Different accounts of being: univocity vs. analogy 105 6.2 Transcendence and immanence: an attempt at a typology 112 6.3 Practical implications 117 6.4 Three post-secular visions 142 7 Conclusion 151 7.1 Transcending the secular 151 7.2 A metaphysical post-secularity 155 7.3 Differing accounts of difference 160 Notes 163 Bibliography 197 Index 209 v

Preface This is a book about how we, despite our differences, might live peacefully together in pluralistic societies. It is at the same time a book about attempts to overcome the strict dualisms of nature/culture, transcendence/immanence, and religious/secular. The assumption that ties these two themes together concerns the centrality of metaphysics, and the inseparability of ethics and politics that the way we construe the underlying structure of reality is deeply related to how we negotiate cultural and political differences. During much of modernity political philosophers have met with deep suspicion the assumption that metaphysics is a relevant subject to discuss in relation to politics. Instead it has been argued that conflicts and disagreement are best resolved if we disregard issues such as religion, worldview, and metaphysics and instead seek to be rational. In critique of such a position, thinkers, such as the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, the British theologian John Milbank, and the American democracy theorist William E. Connolly, have all sought to deconstruct the notion of secularity as a universal and neutral position from which it is possible to relegate the religious to a private sphere. The delimitation between religion and secularity, and between the transcendent and the immanent, has in their view to do with metaphysics. But, it also has practical implications concerning the conditions under which we can live together peacefully. Accordingly, the reading of these three theorists will be focused on their accounts of metaphysics, as well as the political implications of these accounts in terms of pluralism. It will be suggested that Taylor, Milbank, and Connolly should be read as seeking to re-establish the link between metaphysics and political morality, or differently put, as seeking to establish an ontological dimension of the political. Today, most liberal states are torn between attempts to accommodate different religions within floating limits of tolerance, and at the same time trying to uphold a sense of national identity. The traditionally liberal way to negotiate this dilemma has been, to put it bluntly, to address religion as a generic category, relegate it to the private sphere, and to make religion an object of tolerance. The idea of a strict separation between religion and the secular rests on the Kantian philosophy of an authoritative public morality based on a singular conception of reason. Underlying this Kantian distinction is the idea that universal vi

Preface vii moral norms can be generated out of human reason, abstracted from specific religious or metaphysical traditions. This Enlightenment notion of a secular reason disembodied from tradition has played a central role in shaping liberal democracy as well as for the idea of religion as a phenomenon of its own kind. However, the very concepts of religion and the secular, not to mention reason, have since been deconstructed and interpreted from genealogical or non-essentialist perspectives. These queries regarding the alleged neutrality and objectivity of the secular, paired with a renewed interest concerning the political aspects of religion, pose difficult questions regarding the relation between religion and secularity. For, if the doctrine of secularism that has governed public discourse in liberal democracies rests on disputed Enlightenment principles such as an autonomous, universal rationality, then, what alternatives are there for how to reconfigure the relationship between religion and the secular? And furthermore, what do these alternative narratives entail, both philosophically and in terms of a social vision for how we are to live together in increasingly diverse societies? Framed in a different way, the central theme of this book concerns the question of what happens with the relation between religion and secularity when the Kantian idea of pure, or secular, reason is challenged, or different again, when the injunction to bracket references to transcendence is ignored. By comparing the thought of three postsecular theorists, I seek to bring out some of the complexities, risks, and possibilities related to the attempt to transcend the Kantian account of secular reason. In particular, alternative construals of the relationship between transcendence and immanence, as well as more practical aspects of how religious and political differences are to be negotiated without secular reason, will be explored.

Acknowledgments Writing is a lonely process filled with ups and downs. This is why good advice and encouragement from friends and family are so important. I have been very lucky to experience that support can come in many forms: initiated academic advice by scholars, conversations with friends during dinners and late night runs, and love and care by family. The topic of this book concerns the crossing of boundaries. My project has, in a similar way, involved the crossing of several boundaries between subjects, institutions, and countries. As the interdisciplinary nature of this work aims to show, boundary crossing involves difficulties as well as new perspectives and possibilities. I here want to acknowledge my gratitude for the new perspectives given to me through discussions with people from other academic disciplines, from other universities, and at conferences in other countries. These experiences have been crucial for the development of my own thought. First, my gratitude goes out to Olav Hammer at the University of Southern Denmark who made this project possible for me and has guided me with great patience. I am also particularly grateful to the institutions, and people who have allowed me to present my work to them and furthered it through their comments and concerns. I want to mention The Telos-Paul Piccone Institute in New York, The Centre of Theology and Philosophy in Nottingham, The University Centre Saint-Ignatius Antwerp (a special thanks to Professor José Casanova who gave important comments on my project during a rewarding summer school), The Department of Philosophy at UC Berkeley, Charles Taylor, John Milbank, and William Connolly. I also want to express my gratitude to Ola Sigurdson and Arne Rasmusson, for allowing me to attend research seminars in The Department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion, at the University of Gothenburg. I further wish to acknowledge and thank The Danish Council for Independent Research, Culture and Communication (Det Frie Forskningsråd, Kultur og Kommunikation), whose funding has made this project possible. Special thanks go out to Henrik Friberg-Fernros, Lovisa Bergdahl, Andreas Nordlander, Peter Carlson, and Jonatan Bäckelie for their insightful comments and suggestions on my manuscript. I also want to thank Joel Halldorf for organizing theology seminars and stimulating academic conversations at Bjärka-Säby castle. viii

Acknowledgments ix Finally, I want to thank my family. My parents, Åke & Gunnel Bengtson have supported me in so many ways during these years. My sisters families and wonderful kids you bring joy to my life! Finally, my wife Kris who has endured this strange time of our lives and has put up with my sometimes rather absent mind. Thank you for your encouragement, for proof reading, and vivid grammar discussions during those hot weeks in July. I love you!