I haven't read Habermas' recent work, but based on this discussion I get the impression that his newfound appreciation of religiosity is itself an instrumental and conditional one. Something like, "If nothing but religion will help people to behave like good liberal interlocutors then let's encourage those who are religious to enter the tent of deliberative democracy." Of course, that's a terrible reason to explore religions-- and anyway not all religious traditions want to be a part of the modern secular liberal state, as any one who reads the newspapers must know. Religion may have great motivational sweep, but that is an effect of certain convictions that Habermas debunks. Talking about rehabilitating "metaphors" (it's always language for Hab) in the absence of convictions which those metaphors are meant to express or evoke is an empty, and desperate gesture. Habermmas' project of "Rationalization" at the instrumental and ethical levels has always been deeply ethnocentric (see his discussion on Peter Winch and Evans-Pritchard in Th. of Comm. Action Vol. 1), and uninspiring. It sounds a bit desperate to discuss religion only insofar as it facilitates his ethical/political project. I would note that even his predecessors (e.g. Dewey) saw in religiosity and aesthetic experience a taproot that was not understood as a means to some end, but as valuable for their own sake. In this vein, Dewey found joy in chanting with Buddhists when he was in China, not as a Buddhist (he was an agnostic), but as someone receptive to its religious and aesthetic qualities (religiosity not religion). Imagine recommending poems because they help people to become better liberals or something. Ridiculous! Where is the emotional aspect in all this? It sounds like Hab is thinking "strategically" to use one of his old terms of derision. Perhaps I missed something?
I haven't read Habermas' recent work, but based on this discussion I get the impression that his newfound appreciation of religiosity is itself an instrumental and conditional one. Something like, "If nothing but religion will help people to behave like good liberal interlocutors then let's encourage those who are religious to enter the tent of deliberative democracy." Of course, that's a terrible reason to explore religions-- and anyway not all religious traditions want to be a part of the modern secular liberal state, as any one who reads the newspapers must know. Religion may have great motivational sweep, but that is an effect of certain convictions that Habermas debunks. Talking about rehabilitating "metaphors" (it's always language for Hab) in the absence of convictions which those metaphors are meant to express or evoke is an empty, and desperate gesture. Habermmas' project of "Rationalization" at the instrumental and ethical levels has always been deeply ethnocentric (see his discussion on Peter Winch and Evans-Pritchard in Th. of Comm. Action Vol. 1), and uninspiring. It sounds a bit desperate to discuss religion only insofar as it facilitates his ethical/political project. I would note that even his predecessors (e.g. Dewey) saw in religiosity and aesthetic experience a taproot that was not understood as a means to some end, but as valuable for their own sake. In this vein, Dewey found joy in chanting with Buddhists when he was in China, not as a Buddhist (he was an agnostic), but as someone receptive to its religious and aesthetic qualities (religiosity not religion). Imagine recommending poems because they help people to become better liberals or something. Ridiculous! Where is the emotional aspect in all this? It sounds like Hab is thinking "strategically" to use one of his old terms of derision. Perhaps I missed something?
great discussion ,enlightening thank you