God as Reason: Essays in Philosophical Theology

Chapter 13: A Metaphysical History of Atheism

301 CHaPteR 13 8 A฀Metaphysical฀History฀of฀Atheism Charles฀Taylor’s฀most฀recent฀book,฀pithily฀entitled฀ A฀Secular฀Age,1 ฀which฀ grew฀out฀of฀the฀Gifford฀Lectures฀of ฀1999,฀can฀in฀many฀ways฀be฀considered ฀a฀synthesis฀of฀his฀extensive฀oeuvre:฀his฀outstanding฀methodology฀in฀ the฀histor y฀of ฀ideas,฀trained฀in฀Georg฀Wilhelm฀F riedrich฀Hegel’s฀phenomenological ฀approach,฀is฀connected฀with฀his฀v aluable reflections on the฀theory฀of฀social฀sciences฀as฀w ell฀as฀his฀strong฀religious฀eng agement.฀ It฀also฀forms฀a฀sophisticated฀theor y฀of฀secularization฀that,฀in฀ter ms฀of฀ differentiation,฀is฀unparalleled.฀Of ฀course,฀Taylor฀might฀have฀explained฀ everything฀he฀had฀to฀say฀in฀considerably฀fewer฀pages฀since฀the฀individual฀ chapters฀are฀conceived฀more฀as฀independent฀essays฀(ix).฀Certain฀examples฀ recur฀regularly,฀and฀occasionally฀entire฀sentences฀are฀re peated฀word฀for฀ word฀(cf.฀360฀and฀400,฀361฀and฀398).฀But฀on฀account฀of ฀Taylor’s฀elegant฀ writing,฀it฀is฀nevertheless฀always฀pleasant฀to฀read฀his฀later฀prose.฀Particularly ฀fascinating฀is฀the฀“stance”฀b y฀which฀he฀approaches฀his฀theme—for฀ he฀rightly฀maintains฀that฀Edward฀Gibbon’s฀success฀has฀less฀to฀do฀with฀his฀ material฀insights฀than฀with฀the฀dr y฀irony฀of his “unflappable stance” (241;฀cf.฀272ff.,฀286ff.).2 ฀It฀is฀clear฀that฀Taylor’s฀own฀approach฀is฀opposed฀ 302฀ A฀Rationalist’s฀Tradition to฀that฀of฀Gibbon—he฀approaches฀the฀topic฀of฀religion฀with฀a฀genuinely฀ cognitive฀interest:฀ his฀aim฀is฀ not฀simply฀ to฀learn฀about฀religious฀people,฀ but฀to฀learn฀from฀them.฀But฀this฀intellectual฀candor ,฀this฀sincere฀respect,฀ applies฀equally฀to฀those฀who฀in฀the฀past฀centur y฀have฀detached฀themselves ฀from฀religion,฀people฀whom฀Taylor฀tries฀sympathetically฀to฀understand .฀ On฀all฀851฀pag es฀ of฀the฀text,฀one฀detects฀a฀spirit฀of ฀Christian฀ charity฀that฀is฀uncommon฀among฀modern฀intellectuals,฀whether฀nonreligious ฀or฀Christian.฀ After฀the฀extensive฀introduction,฀in฀which฀Taylor฀distinguishes฀three฀ different฀concepts฀of฀secularization฀(as฀a฀separation฀of฀church฀and฀state;฀ as฀a฀decline฀in฀religious฀practices;฀as฀a฀shift฀in฀the฀nature฀of ฀belief฀due฀to฀ the฀availability฀of฀alternatives), the first three parts฀of฀the฀book฀deal฀with฀ changes฀in฀the฀history฀of฀ideas฀from฀the฀world฀as฀it฀was฀five฀hundred฀ years฀ago,฀when฀atheism฀was฀hardly฀a฀common฀view,฀indeed,฀when฀atheism ฀conceived฀itself฀as฀a฀view฀fostered฀by฀the฀devil,฀up฀to฀the฀present-day฀ situation.฀He฀sees฀in฀this฀desire฀for฀refor m฀dating฀bac k฀to฀Hildebrand฀ (Gregory฀VII)฀the฀decisive฀force฀that,฀with฀the฀Protestant฀R eformation,฀ culminates฀in฀a฀new฀form฀of฀discipline฀for฀humans฀and฀leads฀to฀new฀“social ฀imaginaries.” In฀this฀way,฀Taylor฀deftly฀connects฀studies฀in฀the฀history฀of฀ideas฀with฀ social-historical฀analyses฀à฀la฀Norber t฀Elias฀and฀Mic hel฀Foucault,฀and฀is฀ thus฀able฀to฀ban฀“the฀specter฀of ฀idealism”฀(212ff .)฀that฀he฀presumably฀ sees฀ling ering฀in฀J ohn฀Milbank’ s฀alter native฀theor y฀of ฀secularization฀ (773ff.).฀Key฀in฀this฀process฀is฀for฀T aylor฀the฀g enesis฀of ฀the฀“buffered฀ self ”฀(37ff.,฀134ff.,฀300ff.)฀that฀mak es฀the฀earlier ,฀porous฀self ฀impenetrable ,฀so฀to฀speak,฀and฀creates฀a฀shar p฀distinction฀between฀the฀physical฀ and฀psychical,฀which฀he฀sees฀as฀the฀essence฀of฀disenchantment. The฀second฀par t฀deals฀with฀deism฀and฀the฀idea฀of ฀an฀impersonal฀ order฀as฀the฀pivotal฀point฀at฀which฀the฀development฀of฀atheism฀was first made฀possible.฀The฀third฀part,฀entitled฀The฀Nova฀Effect,฀discusses฀the฀continuous ฀emergence฀of฀new฀positions฀since฀the฀nineteenth฀centur y—the฀ radically฀enlightened฀views฀as฀well฀as฀the฀romantic฀reaction฀ag ainst฀a฀rationalization ฀perceived฀as฀spiritually฀impo verishing.฀Among฀these฀reac tions ,฀Taylor฀rightly฀draws sufficient attention to the immanent CounterEnlightenment ,฀as฀re presented฀by฀Friedrich฀Nietzsche฀(369ff.,฀636ff.).฀ The฀fourth฀part฀then฀introduces฀his฀actual฀ sociological฀theory฀of฀secu- A฀Metaphysical฀History฀of฀Atheism฀ 303 larization,฀which฀is฀distinguished฀from฀other฀theories฀that฀easily฀become฀ self-fulfilling prophecies (525, 530, 535). Taylor฀opposes฀authors฀lik e฀ Steve฀Bruce and is instead strongly influenced by฀the฀well-known฀sociologist ฀of฀religion,฀José฀Casanova,฀and฀his฀studies฀on฀the฀enduring฀reli gious ฀motives฀of ฀political฀mo vements.3 ฀According฀to฀T aylor,฀only฀the฀ form฀changes:฀“The฀new฀str uctures฀indeed,฀under mine฀old฀for ms,฀but฀ leave฀open฀the฀possibility฀of฀new฀forms฀which can flourish” (432).฀In฀the฀ first step฀(“The฀Age฀of฀Mobilization”),฀institutions,฀including฀religious฀ institutions,฀understand฀themselves฀more...