No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Rahnerian Theological Response to Charles Taylor's A Secular Age
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
Abstract
In this article I argue that Rahner's notion of the Supernatural Existential serves to complement and more concretely illustrate Taylor's at-times tacit, if conflicted, advocacy for some sort of human characteristic that seeks, desires, or is otherwise oriented toward something ‘beyond human flourishing.' By engaging Rahner's theological anthropology with Taylor's thought in ‘A Secular Age,' I show how Taylor's immanent and transcendent divide presupposes an overly cognitive framework that relies extensively on human agency, thematic reflection, and the necessary intellectualization of human experience. As such, Taylor only ever engages in a secondary-level or a posteriori reflection on belief and unbelief, thereby (perhaps unwittingly) precluding the possibility of considering the a priori ‘condition' for his proposed ‘conditions for belief or unbelief,' otherwise known as ‘secularity 3.' In uncovering the secondary-level cognitive conditions for categorical belief and unbelief today, helps shed new light on the relevance and value of Rahner's project. Furthermore, I suggest that both Rahner and Taylor, although maybe not immediately recognizable, actually share similar concerns that initially launched their respective projects. Read together, Rahner and Taylor offer a fuller treatment of both the human condition and the social circumstances of this age.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2013 The Author. New Blackfriars
References
1 Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.
2 This theme is featured throughout Taylor's text, but is most compactly introduced in A Secular Age, pp. 4–20. For a more recent comprehensive reflection by the author on this theme also see Taylor, Charles, ‘Disenchantment-Reenchantment,’ in Dilemmas and Connections: Selected Essays (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), pp. 287–302Google Scholar.
3 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 744.
4 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 2–4; and Charles Taylor, ‘What Does Secularism Mean?’ in Dilemmas and Connections, pp. 303–25, which was also published in a slightly different form as ‘Western Secularity,’ in Rethinking Secularism, eds. Calhoun, Craig, Juergensmeyer, Mark, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 31–53Google Scholar.
5 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 15.
6 For more on Taylor's term ‘social imaginary’ (an adaptation inspired by the work of Benedict Anderson), see Taylor, Charles, Modern Social Imaginaries (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Major selections from this book were subsequently incorporated into A Secular Age, see pages 159–218 and passim.
7 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 780 n8.
8 This notion of human flourishing is closely aligned with Taylor's description of modern secular humanism in A Secular Age. Taylor explains: ‘I would like to claim that the coming of modern secularity in my sense has been coterminous with the rise of a society in which for the first time in history a purely self-sufficient humanism came to be a widely available option. I mean by this a humanism accepting no final goals beyond human flourishing, nor any allegiance to anything else beyond this flourishing’ (p. 18).
9 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 5. He also reiterates this definition on p. 677.
10 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 6 and passim.
11 Taylor, A Secular Age, pp. 539–66.
12 Cassidy, Eoin, ‘“Transcending Human Flourishing”: Is there a Need for a Subtler Language?’ in The Taylor Effect: Responding to a Secular Age, ed. Leask, Ian et al. (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010), p. 32Google Scholar.
13 See Taylor, A Secular Age, pp. 25–6 and passim. For more on the theme of ‘enchantment’ and the emergence of the secular, see Charles Taylor, ‘Disenchantment-Reenchantent,’ in Dilemmas and Connections: Selected Essays, pp. 287–302; Taylor, ‘Western Secularity,’ in Rethinking Secularism, pp. 31–53; Smith, James K. A., ‘Secularity, Globalization, and the Re-enchantment of the World,’ in After Modernity? Secularity, Globalization, and The Re-enchantment of the World, ed. Smith, James K. A. (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008), pp. 3–16Google Scholar; Bilgrami, ‘What is Enchantment?’ in Varieties of Secularism in a Secular Age, pp. 145–65; Jonathan Sheehan, ‘When Was Disenchantment? History and the Secular Age,’ in Varieties of Secularism in a Secular Age, pp. 217–42; Steinfath, Holmer, ‘Subtraktionsgeshichten und Transzendenz. Zum Status der »modernen moralischen Ordenung«,’ in Unerfüllte Moderne? Neue Perspektiven auf das Werk von Charles Taylor, ed. Kühnlein, Michael und Lutz-Bachmann, Matthias (Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2011), pp. 599–622Google Scholar; Hauerwas, Stanely and Coles, Romand, ‘“Long Live the Weeds and the Wilderness Yet”: Reflections on A Secular Age,” Modern Theology 26 (2010), pp. 349–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Flanagan, Kiernan, ‘A Secular Age: An Exercise in Breach-Mending,’ New Blackfriars 91 (2010), 699–721Google Scholar.
14 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 35.
15 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 33.
16 Drawing on the work of Stanley Tambiah, Taylor distinguishes one's ‘orientation to our cosmos’ (p. 781 n3) in terms of the ‘porous’ and ‘buffered’ selves as discussed here and below. For Taylor's most sustained reflection on the ‘porous self,’ see A Secular Age, pp. 35–43.
17 Charles Taylor, ‘A Catholic Modernity?’ in Dilemmas and Connections: Selected Essays, p. 173.
18 See Taylor, Charles, ‘Challenging Issues about the Secular Age,’ Modern Theology 26 (2010), p. 412CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 41.
20 Taylor, A Secular Age, pp. 39–41.
21 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 38.
22 Taylor, ‘Disenchantment-Reenchantent,’ p. 288.
23 This is strongly emphasized in Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 543 and p. 832 n7.
24 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 543. Emphasis added.
25 Taylor, ‘Challenging Issues about the Secular Age,’ p. 415.
26 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 554.
27 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 594.
28 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 618.
29 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 677.
30 While the term ‘anthropological constant’ closely resembles the theory advanced by the theologian Edward Schillebeeckx, its usage here is not meant to be understood in exactly the same way. Rather, an anthropological constant as applied to Taylor's work is intended to be descriptive of the proposed a priori, universal characteristic that is tacitly advocated in Taylor's theory of the human openness to or drive toward ‘fullness’ (in whatever manifestation). For more on Schillebeeckx's view, see Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord, trans. John Bowden (New York: Crossroad, 1980), pp. 731–43.
31 Taylor, ‘Challenging Issues about the Secular Age,’ p. 416. Intimations of this universal dimension are also identified in the earlier work of Charles Taylor according to Rentsch, Thomas, Gott (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), p. 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘Charles Taylor spricht von einem ebenfalls konstitutiven, unthematischen Hintergrund des Erkennens und Erfahrens.’
32 Charles Taylor, ‘Afterword: Apologia pro Libro suo,’ in Varieties of the Secular in a Secular Age, pp. 300–3.
33 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 600.
34 Stephen Costello, ‘Beyond Flourishing: “Fullness” and “Conversion” in Taylor and Lonergan,’ in The Taylor Effect: Responding to a Secular Age, p. 40.
35 Taylor, ‘Challenging Issues about the Secular Age,’ pp. 410–11.
36 Taylor writes: ‘So the distinction is indispensable, because without it we couldn't understand our dominant social imaginary, and hence the world it helps constitute. And this would make it difficult to understand some of the ways in which the issues of belief and unbelief are inevitably posed for us, whether there is something “beyond” this order or not, whether it exhausts reality or not’ (p. 412).
37 Taylor, ‘Afterword: Apologia pro Libro suo,’ p. 304.
38 See Taylor, A Secular Age, pp. 767–72. Also see Braune-Krickau, Tobias, ‘Charles Taylors religionsphilosophische Rehabilitierung der christlichen Religion in Ein säkulares Zeitalter,’ Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 53 (2011), pp. 357–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 Although an explicit engagement of Taylor's project with Rahner's thought has not previously been attempted, others have nonetheless engaged Taylor's project in A Secular Age from a theological or philosophy-of-religion vantage point; some examples include: Kerr, Fergus, ‘How Much Can a Philosopher Do?’ Modern Theology 26 (2010), pp. 321–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ward, Graham, ‘History, Belief and Imagination in Charles Taylor's A Secular Age,’ Modern Theology 26 (2010), pp. 337–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baum, Gregory, ‘The Response of a Theologian to Charles Taylor's A Secular Age,’ Modern Theology 26 (2010), pp. 363–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Markus Knapp, ‘Gott in säkularer Gesellschaft. Zum Gottesverständnis in Charles Taylors Philosophie der Religion,’ in Unerfüllte Moderne? Neue Perspektiven auf das Werk von Charles Taylor, pp. 650–80; Karl Kardinal Lehmann, ‘Entsteht aus dem verfälschten Christentum die Moderne? Zur Begegnung von Charles Taylor und Ivan Illich,’ in Unerfüllte Moderne? Neue Perspektiven auf das Werk von Charles Taylor, pp. 327–49; Thomas Rentsch, ‘Wie ist Transzendenz zu denken? Kritische Thesen zu Charles Taylors Säkularisierungskonzept,’ in Unerfüllte Moderne? Neue Perspektiven auf das Werk von Charles Taylor, pp. 573–98; John Milbank, ‘A Closer Walk on the Wild Side,’ in Varieties of Secularism in a Secular Age, pp. 54–82; and Long, D. Stephen, ‘How To Read Charles Taylor: The Theological Significance of A Secular Age,’ Pro Ecclesia 18 (2009), 93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Long, ‘How To Read Charles Taylor,’ p. 107.
41 While Rahner's earlier work is often cited (as it is in notes below) as the foundational source for his development of the supernatural existential, one scholarly has recently advocated for a broader reading of Rahner's written corpus to better contextualize and understand what he means by this concept. See Coffey, David, ‘The Whole Rahner on the Supernatural Existential,’ Theological Studies 65 (2004), pp. 95–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In contrast to Coffey, Karen Kilby has sought to emphasize the incongruities between the earlier versions of Rahner's concept of the supernatural existential and the later, see her Karl Rahner: Theology and Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 49–69Google Scholar.
42 See Rahner, Karl, Spirit in the World, trans. Dych, William (New York: Continuum, 1994)Google Scholar; and Rahner, Karl, Hearer of the Word: Laying the Foundation for a Philosophy of Religion, trans. Donceel, Joseph (New York: Continuum, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 Galvin, John, ‘The Invitation of Grace,’ in A World of Grace: An Introduction to the Themes and Foundations of Karl Rahner's Theology, ed. O'Donovan, Leo (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1995), p. 72Google Scholar. Rahner emphasizes this gratuity in several places, for example see Rahner, Karl, ‘Selbstmitteilung Gottes,’ in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 2nd ed., 14 vols. (Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1957–1965), p. 9:627Google Scholar; Rahner, Karl, ‘Concerning the Relationship Between Nature and Grace,’ in Theological Investigations, vol. I, trans. Ernst, Cornelius (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961), pp. 297–317Google Scholar; Rahner, Karl, Nature and Grace: Dilemmas in the Modern Church, trans. Wharton, Dinah (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964), pp. 114–49Google Scholar; Rahner, Karl, ‘The Experience of Self and Experience of God,’ in Theological Investigations, vol. VIII, trans. Bourke, David (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971), pp. 122–32Google Scholar; Rahner, Karl, ‘Reflections on the Unity of the Love of Neighbour and the Love of God,’ in Theological Investigations, vol. VI, trans. Kruger, Karl-H. and Boniface (New York: Crossroad, 1982), pp. 231–49Google Scholar; and Rahner, Karl, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. Dych, William (New York: Crossroad, 2002), pp. 116–37 and passim.Google Scholar
44 Galvin, ‘The Invitation of Grace,’ p. 72.
45 Rahner, Hearer of the Word, p. 41.
46 Duffy, Stephen, ‘Experience of Grace,’ in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Rahner, eds. Marmion, Declan and Hines, Mary (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 46Google Scholar.
47 See Rahner, ‘Concerning the Relationship Between Nature and Grace,’ pp. 297–317; Duffy, ‘Experience of Grace,’ pp. 49–52; and Vass, George, The Mystery of Man and the Foundations of a Theological System: Understanding Karl Rahner Volume Two (London: Sheed and Ward, 1985), pp. 59–64Google Scholar. Also, see Burke, Patrick, Reinterpreting Rahner: A Critical Study of His Major Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 2002), pp. 56–60Google Scholar. It is worth mentioning that Kilby's argument in emphasizing the discontinuity between the earlier versions of the supernatural existential and the later relies, in part, on the revisions made to Rahner's original essay concerning extrinsicism and nouvelle theologie in Orientierung and its later publication in Theological Investigations as ‘Concerning the Relationship Between Nature and Grace.’ To examine the original text, see Rahner, Karl, ‘Eine Antwort (Ein Weg zur Bestimmung der Verhältnisses von Natur und Gnade),’ Orientierung 14 (1950), pp. 141–45Google Scholar.
48 Rahner, ‘Concerning the Relationship Between Nature and Grace,’ pp. 300–2.
49 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, p. 126.
50 Duffy, ‘Experience of Grace,’ p. 47.
51 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, p. 127.
52 Duffy, ‘Experience of Grace,’ p. 47. Emphasis added. Also seeRahner, Karl, ‘Atheism and Explicit Christianity,’ in Theological Investigations, vol. IX, trans. Harrison, Graham (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), pp. 145–64Google Scholar.
53 Anne Carr provides a brief and elucidative summary of this point in her essay, ‘Starting With The Human,’ in A World of Grace: An Introduction to the Themes and Foundations of Karl Rahner's Theology, p. 27: ‘In stressing the intrinsic and reciprocal relationship between transcendence and history, Rahner notes that any aspect of human history may be the carrier of transcendence; the particular experiences, actions, and aspects of our various histories together form the prism through which our transcendent natures are realized.’ Furthermore, Thomas Sheehan offers a helpful term from the study of logic to denote Rahner's unification of the transcendent and immanent in one, coextensive fabric of history. He describes this reality as Rahner's ‘hermeneutics of bivalence,’ see Karl Rahner: The Philosophical Foundations (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1987), pp. 185–6Google Scholar.
54 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, p. 132.
55 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, p. 132.
56 Rahner, Hearer of the Word, p. 54.
57 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 4 and passim.
58 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 677.
59 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 530.
60 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 831, n. 48. Emphasis added.
61 Again, it is interesting to note that, among others to whom Taylor alludes in his response, Stanley Hauerwas and Romand Coles have critiques Taylor's detectably strong division between the immanent and the transcendent in A Secular Age (Hauerwas and Coles, ‘“Long Live the Weeds and the Wilderness Yet”: Reflections on A Secular Age,’ pp. 352–60). Recognizing that his distinction between the two spheres or realities has been consistently attacked by other critics as well, Taylor at one point laments the use of the terms, but quickly changes his tone to (a) defend ‘that the distinction it [the divide between immanence and transcendence] marks is indispensible,’ and that (b) because he suggests a ‘closed’ or ‘open’ spin within the immanent frame, the distinction is not as absolute as some might believe (Taylor, ‘Challenging Issues about the Secular Age,’ p. 411). I do not find his second point convincing for this binary disposition of ‘spin’ within the immanent frame is presented in A Secular Age as a set within a set, not at all open to his other-worldly sense of the transcendent. Rather, the twofold modal conception of ‘spin’ within the immanent frame serves as a semantic, or perhaps more-broadly epistemological, qualifier for naming the perception of some experience, upon reflection, of a ‘buffered self’ within the immanent frame.
62 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 677.
63 Rahner, Hearer of the Word, p. 94.
64 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, p. 32.
65 Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, pp. 32–3.
66 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 677 and passim.
67 See Taylor, A Secular Age, pp. 773–6; and Taylor, ‘Afterword: Apologia pro Libro suo,’ pp. 300–21.
68 Taylor, A Secular Age, p. 768.
69 From an historical perspective, Jonathan Sheehan raises some allied concerns about Taylor's overly conceptual discursive approach to belief and unbelief, fullness, and the transcendent. See his essay, ‘When Was Disenchantment? History and the Secular Age,’ in Varieties of Secularism in a Secular Age, pp. 217–42.
70 This pre-cognitive, pre-linguistic, pre-conceptual, and un-thematic experience of the openness of the human person toward absolute mystery or, alternatively expressed according to the discursive framework of A Secular Age, the universal condition for the possibility of striving toward fullness, is expressed throughout Rahner's writings. For example, see Rahner, Hearer of the Word, pp. 23–89; Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, pp. 14–43, 51–89, 126–33, and passim; Rahner, ‘The Experience of Self and Experience of God,’ pp. 122–32; Rahner, ‘Reflections on the Unity of the Love of Neighbour and the Love of God,’ pp. 231–49; Rahner, Karl, ‘The Theological Dimension of the Question About Man,’ in Theological Investigations, vol. XVII, trans. Kohl, Margaret (New York: Crossroad, 1981), pp. 53–70Google Scholar; and Rahner, Karl, ‘Theology and Anthropology,’ in Theological Investigations, vol. IX, trans. Harrison, Graham (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), pp. 28–45Google Scholar. An insightful study on the relationship between this theme can be found in Craigo-Snell, Shannon, Silence, Love, and Death: Saying ‘Yes’ To God in the Theology of Karl Rahner (Marquette: Marquette University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.
71 Taylor, ‘Afterword: Apologia pro Libro suo,’ p. 317.
72 Long, ‘How To Read Charles Taylor: The Theological Significance of A Secular Age,’ pp. 93–107.