Jürgen Habermas’ acceptance 2001 German Book Traders’ Peace Prize acceptance speech came as a surprise to everyone. To the consternation of his peers, this lifelong champion of the European Enlightenment left was now of the opinion that contemporary societies were postsecular, that the process of modernization was spinning out of control, and that religious traditions might hold the resources we needed to put it right again. The eleven essays gathered in Between Naturalism and Religion (2005) present the first systematic exposition of this “religious turn.”
As noted, one of Habermas’ core sociological theses is that contemporary societies are postsecular. By this he means that they are “epistemically attuned to the continued existence of religious communities.” To live in a postsecular society in this sense is to recognize that modernized religious worldviews—i.e., those that have adapted to the authority of human rights, democratic politics, and institutionalized science—are contemporary intellectual formations. That is, they are just as viable of answers to the cognitive challenges of modernity as secular forms of thought.
This sociological thesis implies an important political one. In a secular state, legal norms and political policies cannot be justified on the basis of religious considerations. At the same time, citizens who recognize the epistemic viability of religious worldviews must take religious participation in the democratic process seriously. On this basis, Habermas argues that it is necessary for religious and nonreligious citizens to cooperate to translate religious contributions to public dialogue into secular terms to see whether they contain some insight that might be convincing once unhitched from the authority of tradition and revelation.
To this we can also add a historical observation: From the Axial Age onward, secular reason has developed by appropriating concepts from the World Religions. Thus, not only can secular thinking learn from religion, but it already has. As should already be clear, Habermas’s project is monumental in scope and staggering in its architectonic complexity. In part for this reason, some of his claims are left somewhat vague and the links between his theses a little sketchy. Nonetheless, it is to my mind one of the most original and exciting intellectual endeavours of the last quarter-century or so.