Prologue

The object of this article is to analyse the acceptance speech given by Jürgen HABERMAS at the University of Norway when he received the Holberg prize. The speech reveals many diverse implications above and beyond the actual spoken text. I would like to begin by analysing these unspoken ideas. This speech was produced by a well-known secular philosopher and as such goes to prove that philosophers are always at work on current realities and is both intent on describing and interpreting contemporary circumstances. Habermas is an honest and well-meaning philosopher whose goal is to moderate the more extreme viewpoint of those selfish modern rationality of secular thinkers and to help them towards an understanding of the destructive wave of religious fundamentalism. He also explains that destructive fundamentalism is the offspring of the assumption of modern ultra-rationality.
Habermas suggests a middle way and in order to carry out this concept he believes that our goal should be to concentrate on all possible conditions necessary to the realisation of this middle way between rationalist and fundamentalist positions. He holds up to question the capacity of the selfish rationalist mind to take into account the overwhelming fury of the rising tide of religion as well as questioning if religious leaders riding the crest of this wave of religious fervour are ready or intellectually able to tolerate other ways of thinking without moving to eliminate their adversary. Habermas’ interpretation is thus an impressively sincere analysis of the modern contemporary situation. As in the past he attempts to find a middle way whilst avoiding the pitfalls of idealism. He uses his own brand of reasoning to work out means of cooperation between religion and modern secularism. Our interest in this article is to see to what extent these propositions on the part of a sincere philosopher working within his own rationale are applicable to both fundamentalist and modern rational points of view.
Clearly today’s world is in need of a prophetic discourse based on love, reason and tolerance. Given the merciless and mutual elimination between rival factions among both secular and religious sides, we have to admire the efforts of those such as Habermas to find a middle reconciliatory way. For several decades now the religious intelligentsia has held up the possibility of mutual co-existence between modern and traditionalist viewpoints though without having achieved much satisfactory concrete progress in real terms. In this field few secular and religious thinkers have sat down together to work out and arrive at true mutual understanding though it should be said that Habermas’ propositions for both secular and religious thinkers have been debated for several years by religious intellectuals. For the sake of our fellow humanity it is clear that we are obliged now and in the future to work out ways of tolerance and co-existence.
We will now go on to analyse four following points;
1. Some significant points in Habermas’ speech and thought.
2. Particular aspects of various religions and their new obligations to the secular world.
3. Secular thinkers and their new obligations
4. Conclusion.
1. Some significant aspects of Habermas’ outlook in his speech.
a. The philosophic aspect
Habermas explains that religious belief in Europe (the cradle of modern secular thought), is on the rise, excluding two countries. For Habermas the spread of a secular lifestyle which until then had been expected to continue unhindered, is now reduced to one unique and restricted scenario connected with the outcome of the religious wars in Europe. Another aspect of Habermas speech is related to the analysis of Self-founded rationality. This rationalism is based on a metaphysical analysis of “modern reason” shared by all humankind. It also upholds in a superior form of Reason accessible to and believable for all human beings.
Habermas is very aware of the limitations of modern rationalism in its closeness to scientific naturalism and he criticises both its dependency on science and its absolutist assumption of being able to find an explanation for any phenomenon. Habermas suggests instead a post-metaphysical form of thought critical of the naturalist, self-posited, metaphysical rationalism. This new mode of thought lays no claim to explaining the universe in all its reality and is opposed to scientific rationalism based on experimental science alone.
This viewpoint traces a clear line between knowledge and faith whilst at the same time refusing any limiting and scientist analysis of rationality; and at the same time, refuse to exclude the religious theories from the domain of the genealogy of the reason. This position of Habermas runs counter to contemporary philosophic rationalism especially in its analytic and linguistic forms. In other words Habermas uses the European philosophical tradition to which he belongs to challenge Anglo-Saxon philosophy.
In criticising the major tendencies of modern rationalism and its closeness to empirical science, Habermas suggests a post-metaphysical approach basing himself on the independence of modern rationalism whilst bearing in mind its limitations and conscious that it cannot be applied on a global scale. He is also careful to separate the areas of religious belief, rationale and reason. The post-metaphysical approach according to Habermas is itself a modernist tendency in German thought which has spread to France. It criticizes nevertheless the misunderstandings of the dogmatic rationality towards itself.
MOJTAHED-SHEBASTARI in his book “Hermeneutics, Holy Text and Tradition” outlines different phases of this rationalism. It should be pointed out that the hermeneutic tendencies of the German philosophers brought out the limits of this rationalism in another interpretation of Kantian philosophy.
b. The politico-social aspect of the speech.
Habermas holds that secular thought belongs to a particular period of European history connected with continental religious wars. In his view it is based on the human capacity for reason which believed in its own potential to take root throughout the known world along with instigating the liberal democracy which is one of its main tendencies. As a critic of liberal democracy and a rationalist secular thinker, Habermas tries to deconstruct secular thought vis-à-vis religion in the public and political spheres. Habermas points out that any attitude implying religion should be laid aside or ignored as a thing of the past will work against the possible creation of a system of tolerance and cooperation between religious and secular thinkers.
Habermas also explains how these ways of thinking have created a situation in which religious intellectuals have kept their distance from their secular counterparts thus further accentuating their differences, especially in the public and political arena where only secular texts hold sway, leaving little room for religious thinkers. This approach also encourages what Habermas considers an inauthentic and uncalled-for compartmentalising effect between public and private spheres. In this context it is interesting to note the efforts on the part of certain Iranian intellectuals to relegate religion to the private or personal sphere in an intensely religious society such as Iran – efforts we may consider doomed to failure since such a separation has not been institutionalised even in secular societies in Occident. Habermas is of the opinion that the dominance of secular texts and literature in the public domain is an obstacle to the full participation of believers in their own choices and in assuming their own destiny and thus can be interpreted as a violation of the fundamental right of each citizen to equal status and consideration before the law. He explains the reasons of this difficulty through the view the modern reason. Nevertheless Habermas also notes the real danger of fundamentalism associated with the possible domination of religious language in legal and other public texts. His proposition to the religious forces concerns the solution of this problem.
2 The characteristics of Various Religions and their new obligations to the world of rational secularism.
Habermas belongs to the third generation of the Frankfurt school of philosophy and as such he holds that any believer has certain duties and obligations in order to co-exist with secular members of society;
a. Firstly, the believer must show respect for any other belief or conviction no matter what it may be. As such she or he must believe in and practice a methodical pluralism and allow full self-expression to those of other faiths and convictions. In order to achieve this aim proposes a epistemological attitude. Here we can note with interest how Sir Seyyed-Ahmed Khan Hindi and Seyyed-Jamal-ed-Dinn Assad Abadi and in Iran Bazargan tried to carry out exactly this principle and attempted to combine both tradition and modernism. In this regard their attempts were both frustrated by the religious fundamentalists and ridiculed by native secular thinkers. Whatever their degree of success, we can say that religious intellectuals and local Iranian religious thinkers did attempt to open up the idea of religion as a mode of thought open to various interpretations and attitudes.
b. Habermas requests religious intellectuals to respect the autonomy and the right to self-expression of secular thinkers and at all costs to avoid a logic of confrontation even when faced with extreme or fanatic points of view. This expectation on Habermas’ part, sincerely expressed and deeply-considered though it may be, appears to us somewhat vague, given that secular and liberal leaders and thinkers have themselves been involved in bitter internecine conflict on several occasions. These very propositions concerning both religious and secular thinkers were outlined by Muhammed IQBAL de Lahore in his book, “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (1936) when he analysed the mutual interdependence of religion, philosophy and science and concluded that each should keep to and respect its own area of specialisation. Even if this solution is not fault free, it can in effect constitute the basis for recognition of different beliefs.
In this context it should be noted how both secular and fundamentalist thinkers deny the continuing efforts of the religious intelligentsia - the fundamentalists in their belief that the latter lack any serious basis and the former in refusing to accept that the religious thinkers can achieve any concrete result. The secular leaders in particular persist in their view that the “religious intellectual” constitutes somewhat a contradiction in terms. Nevertheless an intellectual religious current is an undeniable reality in both the Muslim and Hindu worlds.
c. The third aspect of Habermas’ request to religious leaders - especially theologians and opinion-makers - is to establish a theological basis connected to individualism based on human equality, common law and contemporary morality. This effort to create a co-ordinated whole in the public arena should be made with a view to the consolidation of a legitimate state based on government working within a legal framework. Such a government should be free and unbiased and rather than representative of one particular ideology. In Habermas’ opinion the state would thus be neither a theocracy nor a secularist entity but simply representative of the citizen. Hence the ordinary citizen may follow her or his beliefs in public whilst conforming to the law in order to live in harmony. These laws are not to be considered absolute or unchangeable but are to be legislated according to the needs of the citizen from whom they take their validity. Thus the religious intelligentsia do not believe in the establishment of a theocracy but rather in a legal state of Sovereignty including religious activity fully accepted in the public sphere and which will necessitate the co-ordination of individual and collective moral values guaranteed by law. By contrast the religious fundamentalists’ insistence on one particular form of rule works against any peaceful co-habitation of traditionalism and modernity. In the same way the desire of secularist thinkers to establish a state which is purely secular in conception will not allow any co-operation between modern and traditional lifestyles.
3 Secular thinkers and their new obligations
Habermas similarly urges secular leaders and thinkers to both distance themselves from and admit the limits of modern rationalism in its more absolutist form. They should come to the realisation that in the Orient the rational period of human history took its sources in religion. He justifies this position by referring to Karl Jaspers’ ‘Beginning and End of History.” The concept of a post-metaphysical state is proposed as an alternative to secularism replacing metaphysical and self-positing rationalism. The post-metaphysical thinkers should admit that their religious counterparts have ideas to contribute and a compatible outlook. As a Christian acquainted with protestant theology Habermas also used elements of Kierkegaard’s thought. He also holds that the secular thinkers can find inspiration in religion. As an illustration of this we can cite the influence of Ghandi and Mother Teresa in helping thousands of needy across the world.
Habermas asks secular writers and philosophers to cease to act as if they alone are entitled to decide when and where to include the religious point of view and to develop a more subtle approach to their knowledge of world religions in a rational context.
Arrived at the fork, Habermas abandons his proposition. He insists on the need to abandon a polarised or forked road of thought and outlook. If secular currents continue to insist on self-positing rationalism and liberalism and on challenging post-metaphysical modernity (as defined by Habermas) the world including Europe, will continue irrevocably towards an increasingly polarised society with catastrophic consequences in which neither extreme manages to communicate with the other in any way at all. Habermas believes that such an outcome in Europe with states relying uniquely on legal and political tools will repress and potential and growth on an individual scale as well as making it impossible for citizens to carry out their civic duties in the fullest sense of the word.
4 Conclusion
Religious intellectuals believe that pseudo-modern states are one of the root sources of contemporary religious fundamentalism for in their humiliation of believers they give reason to their cause. There is no doubt that these conflicts between pseudo-traditionalists (religious fundamentalists) and pseudo-modernists have resulted in destructiveness and entrenched and hidebound attitudes in non-Occidental societies as illustrated by Afghanistan and Egypt. On the other hand India can be held up as a successful example of logical co-operation between traditionalist and modern thinking. In India secular and religious parties in the Indian political field work under the umbrella of the legal and powerful state which has successfully implanted the concept of a national identity in a disparate and multifarious political tapestry. From a philosophical point of view Habermas’ speech shows that self-positing rationalist based secularism with its naturalist tendencies is in crisis in its very own cradle and birthplace since European societies are increasingly divided by polarised identity crises between secular and religious currents. Speaking as a secular thinker, Habermas proposes a solution shared both by German theologians and certain French thinkers. In his book, “splintering Identities”, D. SHAYEGAN outlines a combinatory and comprehensive solution for western society drawn from non-occidental ontological and modernity, although he suggests a different set of methods to achieve this end. Both philosophers admit that attractive and powerful though it may be, all forms of self-positing rationalism are in crisis.
The essential development to be noted at this juncture is that rationalism has found its deadly enemy in religious fanaticism. In non-occidental societies the persistent humiliation of traditionalism has resulted in continuous confrontation with pseudo-secularist currents and has hardened and destroyed more moderate religious points of view. Habermas warns of the danger of similar confrontation and polarisation in European societies and that the crisis has returned to its source. The best solution in this case would be for the traditionalist religious and secular thinkers, especially those post-metaphysical secularist leaders to discuss and exchange ideas on a constructive basis. Human experience shows that absolutism and expansionism are inevitable every time an idea or new current attempts to establish government on its own. However, in adverse circumstances every tendency will always attempt to win over or incite its opponent to understanding, whether in the name of religion or reason.
In the Middle Ages, despite the true egalitarian message at the heart of Christianity and that of tolerance at the centre of Islam, each of these religions displayed their more despotic and obdurate side and resulted in modern rationalism. Hence today we are faced with an all-knowing rationalist trend which claims to find an answer for all questions and has emerged from a more benevolent and moderate rationalism. Such a claim has largely contributed to the emergence of the more destructive forms of religious fundamentalism in existence today. As a result we are witness to the conflict between the west and other societies deleterious to world society as a whole, if it is not counterbalanced by the increasing efforts of the more moderate tendencies of both secular and religious thinkers to co-ordinate and combine their outlooks. In occidental society, this result is dependent on the initiatives taken by secular leaders. In non-occidental societies it depends largely on the pseudo-modern thinkers whose duty is to prevent the rise to power of religious fundamentalism - for if fundamentalism is unable to construct, it is very skilled in the work of destruction and bringing about conflict.
For all the above reasons we should wholeheartedly encourage the efforts of those like Habermas. We should be ready and open to constructive discussion with them concerning the limits of modern rationalism, as well as the dangers of religious fundamentalism today.
***