What are we talking about when we talk about the (post)secular? Recentering mutual participation and a commitment to communicability in scholarly discussions of contemporary religions

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION Dialog-A Journal of Theology Pub Date : 2023-03-02 DOI:10.1111/dial.12785
Matthew Ryan Robinson
{"title":"What are we talking about when we talk about the (post)secular? Recentering mutual participation and a commitment to communicability in scholarly discussions of contemporary religions","authors":"Matthew Ryan Robinson","doi":"10.1111/dial.12785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>What are we talking about when we talk about the postsecular? This article looks at the ways articulations of the secular often presuppose the presence – not the absence – of religion and religious plurality. This can be observed even in the work of early theorists of secularism as well as of the first sociologists who observed secularizing tendencies in society and sought to conduct social-scientific inquiry in a way that aimed to be analytically agnostic. At the same time, the return or renewed visibility of religion does not imply a decrease in individualization of religious expression, the disappearance of secularist attitudes, or that challenges of negotiating religious pluralism have been overcome. This more complicated orientation toward relating secularity and religious pluralism shifts the focus away from debates over the truth or rationality of religious beliefs and practices to the need for mutual, voluntary, open, and ongoing communication among them. On the one hand, a commitment is necessary to the creation and maintenance of meaningful participation opportunities in the self-presentation of religious self-understandings in relation to issues of common concern (the mutuality requirement); on the other hand, a steadfast commitment is needed from religious persons and groups themselves to persistent participation in presentation of one's own views or those of one's constituencies in ways that are clear and accessible to all other participants (the voluntariness requirement).</p>","PeriodicalId":42769,"journal":{"name":"Dialog-A Journal of Theology","volume":"62 1","pages":"51-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dial.12785","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialog-A Journal of Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dial.12785","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What are we talking about when we talk about the postsecular? This article looks at the ways articulations of the secular often presuppose the presence – not the absence – of religion and religious plurality. This can be observed even in the work of early theorists of secularism as well as of the first sociologists who observed secularizing tendencies in society and sought to conduct social-scientific inquiry in a way that aimed to be analytically agnostic. At the same time, the return or renewed visibility of religion does not imply a decrease in individualization of religious expression, the disappearance of secularist attitudes, or that challenges of negotiating religious pluralism have been overcome. This more complicated orientation toward relating secularity and religious pluralism shifts the focus away from debates over the truth or rationality of religious beliefs and practices to the need for mutual, voluntary, open, and ongoing communication among them. On the one hand, a commitment is necessary to the creation and maintenance of meaningful participation opportunities in the self-presentation of religious self-understandings in relation to issues of common concern (the mutuality requirement); on the other hand, a steadfast commitment is needed from religious persons and groups themselves to persistent participation in presentation of one's own views or those of one's constituencies in ways that are clear and accessible to all other participants (the voluntariness requirement).

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当我们谈论(后)世俗时,我们在谈论什么?在当代宗教学术讨论中重新引入相互参与和对可交流性的承诺
当我们谈论后大教堂时,我们在谈论什么?这篇文章着眼于世俗的表达方式,通常以宗教和宗教多元性的存在而不是不存在为前提。这一点甚至可以在早期世俗主义理论家以及第一批观察到社会世俗化趋势并试图以分析不可知论的方式进行社会科学探究的社会学家的工作中观察到。与此同时,宗教的回归或重新引人注目并不意味着宗教表达的个性化减少,世俗主义态度的消失,也不意味着谈判宗教多元化的挑战已经克服。这种将世俗性和宗教多元主义联系起来的更复杂的取向将焦点从关于宗教信仰和实践的真实性或合理性的辩论转移到了他们之间相互、自愿、开放和持续沟通的必要性上。一方面,必须致力于创造和保持有意义的参与机会,就共同关心的问题(相互性要求)自我表达宗教自我理解;另一方面,宗教人士和团体本身需要坚定承诺,以所有其他参与者都能清楚和接触到的方式,持续参与表达自己或自己选区的观点(自愿要求)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Wondering, Intervening, Being Enmeshed: Eco-Theology in Light of Ecology 1, Ecology 2, and Ecology 3 Theology and the More-Than-Human World A Woke Christianity Exists! Lutheran Ecotheology and the Anthropocene: Posthumanism, Apocalypse, and Hope
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1