Philosophy@Utah State

Home » Uncategorized » Habermas on religion and reason

Habermas on religion and reason

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 106 other followers

Old Main, USU


You need a Philosophy T-shirt! For more information, please click here.


* Interested in presenting a paper at an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE or publishing in an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL? You should consider it! To see what options are available, both in state and out of state, click here.


• Is the world eternal? YES
• Do humans have contra-causal free will (i.e., can humans do otherwise)? NO
• Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? YES
• Do humans have souls? YES
• Are there natural rights? YES
• Is it morally permissible to eat meat? NO
• Is the unexamined life worth living? NO
• Is truth subjectivity? YES
• Is virtue necessary for happiness? YES
• Can a computer have a mind? YES
• Can humans know reality as it is in itself? YES
• Is hell other people? YES
• Can art be created accidentally? NO
• Can we change the past? NO
• Are numbers real? NO
• Is it always better to know the truth? YES

Blog Stats

  • 195,738 hits

Here is an interesting NYTimes article on Jurgen Habermas (long a defender of Enlightenment rationality) and his changing views on the role of religion and the possibilities of secular reason.



  1. blood_and_ashes says:

    I lack the language to fully talk on this, but really fascinating.

    “Among the modern societies, only those that are able to introduce into the secular domain the essential contents of their religious traditions which point beyond the merely human realm will also be able to rescue the substance of the human.”

    Only a God will save us. Also much of it including this quote reminded me a bit of Dr. Hemming’s lecture recently that hit me so hard. Can man know itself without properly knowing what is beyond it, seeing the end whole of which it is a fraction? Is it perhaps the failure of the enlightenment and modernity that it focuses so much on its fractal area that it has lost its truth of itself? I’ve been debating with some pro choicers recently on the need for abortion and birth control in light of aids and more recently the woman who tried to send her adopted child back to RUSSIA. Not to go off topic, but their comments were always “better to be dead than unwanted” to which my reply was always that the “wantness” of the child is the problem. The child is a thing to be wanted or not wanted, instead of a person. I argued at that point it doesn’t matter what gizmos or clinics you provide, the source has been disordered and what ever is prevented by those tricks is incidental.
    Sorry for the ramble, so I wonder if Fish and Habermas are saying the same for modernity and secular reason? Is it trying to so hard to preserve its democratic parts that its willing to sacrifice the value of the Man by denying what makes him Man, the transcendant to which he can strive, the whole that makes him complete?

    I guess to try and tie it in with the birth control bit, is it better to simply have the protection when (not if but WHEN) the husband cheats so he doesn’t get infected, or is it better to expect more of him to not do so? Is reason sufficient applied to individuals or must it be given a Father?

    Sorry if this sounds nonsensical, I’m just caught in the flux and didn’t want to forget.


  2. Dan says:

    Very interesting. I really enjoyed the article. And I too lack the language to talk on this.

    What I don’t understand is how one can so easily filter out the “essential contents” of religious traditions and apply them to secular societies or an atheist framework. I don’t see how one can have his cake and eat it too in this situation- how atheism and transcendence can be wedded. Not that atheists can’t have transcendent experiences, but atheism isn’t philosophically large enough to contain these experiences.

    It seems to me a bit like Cliffs notes religion. You may be able to fake a conversation about Hamlet having read the Cliffs notes, but of course you will have missed the whole point. The essence of a great work of literature, a great piece of music, or a great spiritual tradition cannot really be separated from its larger context.


  3. Hunt says:

    It’s basically a matter of cultural inertia. Certainly at each great historic social dislocation there has been confusion and disorientation. The author’s atheist friend who arranged a religious funeral was probably thinking as much about his religious associates and relatives as he was about the appropriateness of the ceremony for himself, and this underscores the point. No cultural juggernaut can be easily diverted, and while citizens remain within it they will always be compelled to accommodate it to an extent, no matter what their personal beliefs. However, paganism did in fact give way to Christianity, and Christianity, will probably give way to something else — perhaps enlightened secularism. The polytheists no doubt could not envision a world bereft of pagan ritual and may have been quite dubious of the efficacy of any Christian substitute. (It’s worth mentioning something everyone here probably already knows — in Roman times Christians were called “atheists.”)

    It’s enough for me to be able to envision a secular world, and yes, I can do it. But perhaps it’s not within the capacity of everyone.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: